norwaysaint

This was actually Sweden, but the same applies. The fish thing is a big issue. Because of the plentiful food leaking down, huge amounts of fish hang around the fish farms and do indeed consume antibiotics in low amounts, building up the resistance.

I remember back around 2000, when my wife was working as a district vet, she said that there would be a big problem one day, because farmers just wanted to get antibiotics to their animals and were managing to bully a lot of weaker vets into it. That means a steady low level drip of antibiotics into the system, exactly the perfect situation for building resistance. She was sick of hearing the equivalent of "Look love, just give us the antibiotics like the other vets do and we'll take care of it all.".

Didn't our decline begin under Strachan? I seem to remember we were very poor in his final months. Then Wigley came after Sturrock and he just couldn't get the results despite always seeming to come close. Sturrock was mediocre, but it's rewriting history to say he made us that bad. Despite fingers being pointed at Beattie, I seem to remember it turning out to be Dodd who was sabotaging his reign, was that right?

I watch through the laptop and HDMI, but for the last few weeks I get lots of freezes and delays with sportsmania (same problem with either of my laptops), making it almost unwatchable. I don't have speed problems streaming from any other site and it never happened until recently. Doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone else here, anyone know why it could be?

[h=1]The 26 happiest, richest, healthiest, and most crime-free countries in the world[/h] http://uk.businessinsider.com/legatum-institute-prosperity-index-top-countries-2015-10 This is interesting. The UK at number 15, falling two places, outside the top 20 for education and safety. USA at number 11, thanks to being top for health, but one of the very worst for being safe and secure. Of course there are better places to live than either...

I hope that comment is ironic and that everyone here understands it's nonsense. Luckily most "grasses" in history are rightly seen as very brave people who were strong enough to stand up to those trying to silence them. I hope nobody out there trying to summon up the courage to speak out against oppression, discrimination, harassment, corruption, abuse and bullying is ever put off by this often repeated and clearly utterly moronic and incorrect phrase. Everybody likes a grass, they are some of the heroes of history, but of course the word grass is the term used by bullies, abusers, corrupt people and those in a position where oppression is necessary for them to get away with something. But yeah, if you're a kid suffering from abuse, don't tell anyone because "nobody likes a grass". If you're a woman being sexually harassed and abused keep it schtum, eh? If you're being bullied to the point of suicide, don't be a snitch. It may have been a joke, but I ****ing hate that phrase, even when it's light hearted, because it does damage.

I picked up GTA V (PS3) around last Christmas and have only played it about three times, before getting bored of it. It's probably an age thing, I was utterly absorbed by San Andreas, but this just did nothing for me.

Think it's already been said, but our squad is stronger and our first team is weaker. That's pretty much what we can expect too. We can keep buying players at the upper end of our level, but any that look top end will move on to other clubs, which is fair enough, because we would drop them if they were at the lower end. I think we're about the 7th to 10th best team in the league, which is better than I'd expected for this season, so anywhere thereabouts is good, anywhere higher is absolutely outstanding. At the end of the season I'd say we're in with a chance of losing VvD, Mane, Wanyama (although I'm not sure he'd get the clubs coming in for him that he might hope for) and possibly Bertrand. However, I think Liverpool won't come in for more and the very top clubs will be aiming higher than our players, so it's only really Spurs we need to worry about trying to poach our players and they don't offer that much. Long way to go yet though.

Second half was the worst I've seen from us in ages. I felt like if they scored, they could push on and we'd have had trouble getting back into it, but we won, so all good in the end I suppose. The goals were both wonderful, real PL class.

Forget what it says on the calendar and just look at the live streams. It's there in name. Sadly that commentary link has inexplicably switched to French.

Currently using the audio from this site with poor video quality: http://vipbox.so/soccer/watch-21189e-southampton-vs-aston-villa alongside sportsmania, which has perfect video and no sound. Amazingly they are in sync.

' Anonymous?

Have some of you people really not heard the use of the word "gay" as an insult? I often hear it used that way, "Don't be so gay." is pretty common. Don't you think that the most common word for homosexuality being used as a synonym for stupid, crap, embarrassing and other negative things is going to make things pretty tough for many people who aren't sure how their homosexuality will be accepted?

I don't really get the comments about his performances. I don't really ever remember him being particularly poor, certainly not over a sustained period. He was effective in his first season, more so than JRod. He linked up brilliantly with Lallana and Lambert and the most common criticism then was that he often used to be a bit ahead of the other players, seeing an excellent pass and setting up a player who hadn't been expecting it. Then he was dropped from the starting line up in his second season and from there on it seems to be mostly speculation. I've never entirely understood why he lost his place, but it was from the start of the season really, so it wasn't poor performances. Since that time he's never really had any run of matches in the first team at all, just a few cameos, so nothing to base an opinion of how well he's playing on. With the level of expectation attached to wages and a fee like his, that makes him a disappointment and we can't justify keeping him, even though he's clearly good and in a position where we need a bit of quality right now. Going on about poor performances is rewriting history a bit though. He was part of at least one miserable cup exit, but that was a poor team showing.

Yes, that's pretty fair. Annoyingly, that player you're talking about was very clearly Ramirez, who filled the gap brilliantly, if for only about 15 minutes. I don't agree with people saying it was just our long balls in that made their defence look good. You have to give some credit, at times their was some great passing around the edge of the box and also some nice runs in, but they made it almost impossible to get a decent shot off. They were strong in defence, in fact it was probably the best part of their game and ours.

Although VvD was excellent, I was surprised to come on here and see that he was popular choice MoM. I thought Bertrand was the best player on the pitch today. I also thought Pelle was okay, but their defending was brilliant today. The midfield was our weak link.

Ramirez looked like just what we needed today, far better than Juanmi or JWP. That's just typically annoying of him.

He was always inconsistent, even at his best, but you can get away with that playing for saints. Not so much after a multi million pound move to a club with big expectations.

Was Keegan a record signing? I don't remember ever seeing details of what he cost. Was he at the end of his Hamburg contract?

I bought a PlayStation 3 cheaply about a year and a half ago and was surprised by how quickly I found everything same-y and got bored. I even gave up on GTA 5 after just a few days. However, two games that I enjoyed and completed were The Last of Us and Uncharted 3. I thought they were head and shoulders above most stuff.

Do people think it works well with Wanyama AND Romeu playing together then? I got the impression they both try to do the same job a bit too much and it was better to have one or the other and then another midfielder who adds something else. I have no idea as I've seen far too little of the matches recently, but don't we seem more effective when we just choose one of them? Genuine question, how has it looked with both playing before?

Yes, I have to admit I had written off Tadic as not being the player he at first seemed, when he was so poor for two thirds of last season, but now he really seems to have gone back to the form that we loved early last season.

You have to include Delgado really. Although his transfer fee was slightly less than Delap officially, we were obliged to buy Kleber Chala for a million, when we clearly had no use for him.

Why is there an idea that it takes a lower quality school to educate those who are less academic? Why is it assumed that grammar schools are the good schools and other schools will be worse? Yes, there will be those who will go on to earn minimum wage from non-grammar schools, but grammar schools will also churn out their fair share of useless unemployable people who want to do media studies and History of Art. There are a lot of resources needed to educate people who will take trade jobs like plumbing, carpentry, building etc. These are also not necessarily low paid jobs as is regularly referred to here. Many of my students will earn more than I do within a couple of years. As I said earlier, I teach at a school where practical work is the main priority and we demand a huge amount of resources compared to the more academic schools and our pupils go on to earn more money in many cases. I think a grammar school system is fine, but the non-grammar schools will need a lot of investment and focus so that they train people for real employment, probably more than the grammar schools.

I don't necessarily have any problem with it, although I have exactly zero knowledge of the system. There wasn't anything like that where I grew up and there certainly isn't here. I think it can be a good idea to cater towards those who would be more suited to practical work and those more suited to academic subjects. Naturally the basic, core subjects would need to be covered equally at both. One thing there seems to be a lot of talk about though, is grammar schools being better and also given some sort of priority. I don't see any reason for that. In fact the equipment needed for more practical subjects would probably necessitate the non-grammar schools getting the lion's share of resources available. I am aware that this would end up with some students feeling they were not suited to the school where they ended up and eventually being let down by the system, but aren't there quite a few being let down by the system now as well? As I say I have no experience of grammar schools and if it just means "good schools and bad schools" then it's a terrible idea and sadly, that's how quite a few are making it sound. I work at a vocational school over here and we have state of the art equipment and are one of the most over-subscribed schools with the best reputation in the region. I teach English, but with a slightly different curriculum to those who go to an entirely academic school. I have to incorporate their profession into the work. It's good that there are places where those who are not suited to theoretical subjects can excel.