Lord Duckhunter

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.

Personally I think this has been a terrible World Cup, along with '90 & '04 it's the worst I can remember. I've never really understood this obsession with '90 and Bobby Robson's team. They were poor, only managed to beat Egypt, Belgium and a very naive Cameroon.In my mind that doesn't qualify them for the hero status that seems to have been heaped on them. I dont know if it was my age at the time but '74 & '78 seemed so much different to what we'd seen before, with long range shots and skills we didn't see every week. The lesser sides weren't so well organised so that let the better players and sides play.I was just left feeling really really disapointed with what was served up this time. I find Spain quite boring to watch, certainly not a patch on The Dutch sides of '74 &'78, who only ended up runners up.

What is the best and cheapest way to put my daughters DVD's onto her PSP? We use Windows media player and from my limitted knowledge think that the DVD has to be converted to a format that the PSP can read. I've googled it and there's loads of advise (too much really), there's free programmes and ones you pay for. Does anyone know the best option, that is pretty much idiot free? Are some of the DVD's protected because she has a lot of Disney and Hannah Montana type DVD's, the last thing I want is to buy something that can not bypass any protection. I was thinking of getting a programme that could edit my camcorder clips, as the one that came with the camera is pretty basic. I know I'll have to pay for that, but prehaps there is one that could also do the above, thereore killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Any advise would be gratefully received (with the added benefit of giving me a break from a 9 year old, asking for help over and over again)

"Two Jags" represents all that the Labour party now stand for. A party that ditched all its principles in a grab for power, and then would do any thing and say anything to cling on to it.Groucho Marx could have been talking about Prescott and the rest of his new labour cronies, with his words "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others".

Thanks for the advice. The first one's out of the question, although the sort of thing I was thinking off. At that price, I'd be better off buying a load of memory cards and use a different one every few days. The second one could work, but being a bit of an old women when it comes to these things, I'd be worried as to whether the photos had saved. I may pop into a camera shop and see what they advise.