Lord Duckhunter

Had MM been English, Aussie or from New Zealand, he'd never have got away with it. Had he been playing in Jim Lakers day, he'd have been called every ball, and never have taken the wickets he did. Therefore people are not comparing like for like. Granted, he has taken more wickets than any other chucker, but that's not too hard as the others were not allowed to continue. The ICC pandering to the Asia block and fear of a breakaway and loss of the main revenue earner, India, mean he's been allowed to continue to chuck the ball. Warne on the other hand is one of the all time greats, leg spin was a dead art in test matches 20 years ago and he changed that completely.You can not compare the two. Warne would have taken wickets 50 years ago, MM would not have been allowed to chuck the ball. I dread to think the damage Lillie and Thompson or the West Indian quicks would have done to the batsmen, if they'd chucked it.

Come on, he's made under 30 appearances in the whole of his professional career. The only Manager apart from his Dad that's ever signed him is Jan P/Rupert Lowe.He's been on loan 5 times, 3 of which the loans been cut short, the only 2 loans that weren't cut short were Lincolns and one at Plymouth, who was Plymouth's Maanger at the time, one T Pulis.He's a midfield player, but has yet to score a goal in 7 years for 8 different clubs, although I cant believe Daddy didn't make him the Peno taker. We had the same problem with my lads side, the Manager kept picking his son when he clearly wasn't good enough, only difference was it was under 10's and they weren't earning £1000 a week under false pretences. Now I know I've never seen him play, but I'm pretty confident that his record proves if his name wasn't Pulis, he wouldn't have a career in the professional game.

Perhaps we should follow the Israeli's approach to this sort of thing and organise a hit in Libya, afterall he was supposed to near to death and has lasted a year.

I think the whole NHS needs a revolution which only the Labour party will be allowed to deliver, unforutunatly they have not got the will to do so and therefore it'll just go along stumbling from crisis to crisis, from top down target to top down target. For a "free at the point of delivery" service it is fantastic , howver you pay for what you get. There's always going to be strains on the service and problems with it. I've laways beleived the more people that use private health care, the less strain and more money available for everyone else. Firms should be encouraged to offer private provision to work alongside the NHS. People have Company pensions and a work pension. Insurance should be offered to cover certain treatments and Doctors visits. In Ireland, if you're not entittled to a medical card (which is held by the elderly and the poorest 30% approx) then you have to pay for certain things, GP's visit ect. My friends wfe works in a supermarket, the company pay for her to have 6 visits a year under an insurance scheme (not sure if she has to contribute). Surely this is the most sensible way to go. As I pay into my Company pension, my emplyer makes a contribution, we could extend this (through a seris of incentives) so that a similar insurance scheme could help fund some of my NHS treatment. I find it bizzare that we have ab obsession with free visits to the GP's and yet when prescribed a remedy, go next door to the Chemist and hand over £6 ish. Thta's hardly "Free at the point of delivery". Most prescriptions I've ever had could have been prescribed by the pharacist (as in many foregin countries) further freeing up GP's time and finances. Sex changes, Boob jobs and other such treatments should not be funded out of general taxation. People who can afford it should be encouraged to take out private provision, emploees should be encouraged to offer it and provided Govt funding is not cut in line with the number opting out we may get a better service for the people who really need it.

Agreed. Since Sir Alf we've had; Don Revie-Great Club Manager, paid great attention to detail with dossiers ect Ron Greenwood-Gentleman who liked football played the proper way Bobby Robson-One of the best at club level. Graham Taylor-Played a "British" style Terry Venables-Redknapp like figure loved by the players Glenn Hoddle-Great player, bright tactically aware Manager Keegan-Enthusiastic, passionate, loves England Sven-Good club record, foregin, relaxed regime around the players Maclearn-Good coach,English Cappello-Great Club record, foregin and runs a tight ship. Therefore we've basically had every type of Manager that it's possible to have, we've had great club managers, English and Foregin and we've reached the grand total of 2 semi finals. One on home soil (I truely believe we should have won Euro '96) and one after pretty ropey performances to get there. Yet, we keep blaming the Managers, we keep sacking them. It's all the Managers fault, The Turnip, The wally with the Brolley, Keegan wasn't up to it, Sven let the players run riot, Cappello was too strict on them. When are the media and the general public going to stop blaming Managers and start looking where the real blame lies, players and the people who run the game.

Dont agree. He came out of a tough group with The Argies,Sweeden and Nigeria in 2002 and got us into the 1/4 final of every tournement. His tournement record was losses to France, Brazil, Portugal (on Pens). Compare that to Saint Bobby Robson's, didn't qualify, lost every game, Semi Final and 1/4 final. Robson lost to Ireland,Portugal (and they were poor then, beating us was their only win) USSR, Holland, Argies and Germany (on Pens). Sven lost one group game (to France), and that was a game with a freak ending , thanks to Heskey and Gerrard.Robson lost 3 in one tournement alone . Robson's hero like status is based on having the fortune to draw a naive Cameroon in the Semi Final after limping out of the gropu and beating Belgium in the last minute.Add into that his failure (like Maclearn) to qualify for his first tournement, his record is vastly over stated at international level. Sven's record stands up against anyones if you take home advantage away.

2. Hinchingbrooke is not being privatised. What is being offered is a franchise to operate the hospital. Read my first post, I said it's basically being francised. Francise/Private pretty similar in my eyes. 9. The successful franchisee will not be making a profit at the expense of patient care. They will be subject to the same clinical and operational scrutiny as every NHS hospital. AT THE EXPENSE OF PATIENT CARE. This is not the same as not making a profit. Companies bidding for a francise, where they cant make a profit, interesting concept, but a right load of pony. Why were the 5 listed interested, to make money. How do they make money, by running a service previously run as a public service.

So under Labour it was to become a franchise, ran by a private Company for a profit? Had they won the election, one of the Companies I listed above would have run this NHS trust, with any profits going into the Shareholders pockets.

Perhaps you should tell The Guardian and Unions that it was not for profit until "the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis." http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/19/hinchingbrooke-huntington-hospital-nhs-private According to this article dated 19/2/2010 way before the election was called." Health service unions have called on the government to suspend the tendering process that will lead to the virtual privatisation of an entire NHS trust and its £40m debt." Karen Jennings, head of health at Unison, said: "The views of local people, who want to keep their hospital in the NHS, are being trampled on. ...This whole outsourcing process [is] an unnecessary costly and dangerous experiment. Hinchingbrooke Hospital does have debts, but they are no worse than many other trusts." Why would 5 private Companies want to get involved in Feb 2010, if it was "NOT FOR PROFIT"?, or did they know the Tories were going to win the election and therefore all of a sudden they could make profits. Perhaps I will visit an optician, after 13 years of a wonderful caring Labour Govt, I presume it's free and wont cost me anything?

I'm sorry but I really am struggling to understand your point. It is a "NOT FOR PROFIT" set up, but "WILL" be able to make profit on the back of sick people. Fair play, you seem to be saying that's "disgusting" whether set up by Tories/Lib Dems or Labour.However Burnham and other New Labour hypocrites have no such beliefs. Labour privatisation good, Tory/Lib Dem privatisation bad seems to be their policy.The truth in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle.

Labour put the wheels in motion to sell it to a "for profit" Private Company. How many more hospitals would they have put out for tender, had they won the election? From selling off parts of the NHS, to locking up in prison more people with mental health issues, Labour hypocrisy makes we want "to weep".

Labour had 13 years to restablish these. 13 years in which they throw money at the NHS in the manner of a BP oil spill.How many Mental Institutions did they open and why are we still (after 13 years of a caring Labour govt) locking up in prison, more people with mental health problems than ever before. And why did Labour privitise parts of the NHS, if "for profit" health providers are such a bad thing?

"Andy Burnham says the effects of the coalition’s proposed health changes make him want to weep." Was he crying for the people of Huntington when HE sold off Hinchingbrooke Health Care to a private "for profit" organisation?

Who would have thought it? Who would have thought we'd have gone backwards since Sven hung up his Cuban Heels?

If Labour were so against Private Companies getting involved with NHS functions, they why did they allow Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust, to be put out to tender privatising the whole of this NHS trust.It will now basically be a francise, with Care UK, Circle Health, Interhealth Canada (UK), Ramsay Health Care UK and Serco Health bidding to run it.The FIRST time this has been allowed to happen, even Nasty Mrs T didn't go this far, but Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham did, with backing (at the time) from Labour leadership candidates Ed Balls,Ed Milliband and David Milliband. Where were the howls of protest and posts about the Nasty Labour Party? It seems that Labour are allowed to privatise bits of the NHS but not the Torys or Lib/Dems.

I'm not moaning about it, I was just wondering if you thought it unfair in both ways. It seems a lot of Labour supporters/MP's have all of a sudden become converted to the unfairness of it. I didn't recall too many pleading for a fairer system when it delivered them 3 landslides.

Do you think it's unfair that The Tories got more votes than Labour did in '05 and had to form a coalition, Labour with less votes won a landslide?

Labour lost more seats than at any General Election since 1931. The Conservatives exceed Labour’s 2005 figure in number of votes. Labour were rejected by The English, with the Tories having an overall majority of 60 (roll on independence) after putting Labour,Greens and Lib Dems together. Strange set of results when they were doing such a good job of keeping crime down, protecting public services and protecting us from total finacial meltdown.Perhaps had they spent more time on governing instead of fighting each other, they may have held onto more seats. It's not a question of Tory or Labour crime figures. When it come to crime, they are both as bad as each other, as there is no reliable method of recording Govt actions against drops in crime numbers..

What people keep trying to tell you is that it's impossible to tell whether crime has indeed fallen, because until we have a meaningful measure it's always going to be open to debate.Fear of crime is a pointless measure because everyone's circumstances are different. Recorded crimes is meaningless for the many reasons listed earlier. Crime figures are just a political football kicked around for the past 50 years and no doubt for the next 50 years. I guess the only measure that really counts is people's crosses at the General Election and suggust that if people really did believe crime had fallen so much as a result of Labour policies, would not have comprehensively rejected them by so much at the ballot box.

But it's not recorded in the crime figures. Both Labour, Tories, and I've no doubt the new Coalition have skewed crime figures so much that they are pretty meaningless. It is not just Govt policy that effects crime figures and it is disingenuous for parties to continue to claim that it is. Modern security devices on cars and in homes, shops and offices make it harder to commit crime. The economic conditions play a part, the amount of crime that is just not reported does as well. My bike being stolen was a crime, but it was never reported.Things that were reported years ago, are now not in the crime figures. 30 years ago a group of youngsters misbehaving would have been told to behave. Nowadays any adult doing so risks being set upon or insulted. Therefore, most just walk on by, turning a blind eye.Do not try to tell me the streets are safer than they were 30 years ago. The risk to older school children being knifed or even shot is less than it was 30 years ago, or it's safer for women to walk through our cities late at night on their own is safer than it was 30 years ago.Our cars and homes are safer, not because of any Govt policy, but because they have alarms, CCTV and other such devices.

On QT last night Francis Maude gave a whole list of crimes that weren't included in the lastest figures, included in this was shop lifting.Now the panel had a very left bias, with Traitor George Galloway,The speakers wierd wife and Andy Burnham, none of them picked him up and neither did Dimble. I know for a fact that a very large store near me issue banning orders to people they catch shop lifting, rather than call the police.

The facts and figures ignored, are not worth the paper they're written on. I had my bike stolen last month, didn't even bother reporting it. I knew the Police would do nothing so didn't see the point. How many other crimes of a similar nature aren't reported. If we banged up all the people drunk and disorderly in town centres, after taking advantage of Labours relaxing of the licencing laws, the figures would soon shoot up.Crime figures are meaningless until every offense is dealt with and every crime reported.

Crime figures are complete and utter Pony, were under the last Tory Govt, the last Labour Govt, and will be for the coalition. Try walking around big cities at night, with **** artists and idiots wandering about, try to tell a group of teenagers to stop swearing or behave themselves, then tell me the streets are safer. Modern alarms on cars, better security in houses and cheaper electrical goods (TV's, DVD's ect) have forced burglary rates down, not anything any Govt's done.

I thought Webb was pretty poor yesterday, but what really got my goat was the BBC pundits obsession with the Spainish and constant slagging of the Dutch. Had they sat back and let Spain play, they'd have lost 3 or 4 nil. It's the WC Final and they had to get amongst them. Apart from the kung Fu kick the tackles weren't that bad and had Webb stuck to the letter of the law, then Iniesta should have been off as well. I saw 3 occasions when he waved an imaginery card at Webb (which is an ungentlemanly conduct booking). The free kick that hit the wall was clearly a corner and that was a major mistake. Robbin should have hit the deck, when Puyol clearly impeded him. Which is exactly what Iniesta did when Heitinga gave him the briefest of touches and he went down in a heap. Both sides cheated and spoilt a show picece and Webb never really got control of the game.

I thought he did ok for us, but surely it's time to move on.