benjii

I haven't read the first page but I bet Dubai Phil has posted something unpredictable and hilarious.

Just a guess but probably because he only goes to about 5 home games and it was easy to get tickets in the last seven years. I'm guessing he thinks it will be more hassle to get tickets next season. By the way, you're becoming proper ****ing monotonous on here. Boring.

Guly?! You stupid ******. You shouldn't be allowed in the ground.

Belmadi?! You flipping nutter. By the way, Gasmi.

Simply intolerable.

I've been to his house for dinner too. He played the xylophone. Lovely stuff.

Le Tiss v Blackburn is one of the beat goals EVER. By anyone. EVER.

I love Markus. I love Nicky. Who's the dude in the picture?

I swear I saw Morgan on the telly in the crowd at the Cardiff v WH match last night.

Looked like a boy amongst men against Milwall. I expect he's miles off the first team.

Thanks. So it's pretty simple stuff to use? You lost me at "media server"!

Agreed.

Now then, I understand it may be illegal to copy purchased dvds and so, personally, I would never do it. But, out of interest, if someone wanted to get a purchased DVD on to their iPad and they also had a pc would there be a simple and novice-friendly way of doing it and, if so, what is it? Just wondering if it's technically possible, that's all...

I know for a fact he's being replaced by Paul Hart.

I keep seeing this retarded statement, or variations of it.

You didn't go to their matches against us then?

Indeed. All this will do is make the Premiership even more of a closed shop and distort even more the value of parachute payments.

It strikes me that the main substantive concern here seems to be not the principle of inheritance but, in fact, the question of whether one should be permitted to own land at a particularly large scale. Is that, in fact, the main point of the thread? In other words, provided no one amasses too much land in the first place, there ought to be no issue with them passing that land on to whomsoever they choose (presumably with the proviso that the inheritee does not already own such amount of land that would take them over the prescribed limit)? Is that right? Or is really the principle itself of inheritance? Do away with that and you basically advocate arbitrary state appropriation of property (it takes enough ****ing money from people already FFS). So, what is this arbitrary limit to be? And all that needs to be done to get around it is to devolve legal ownership and use trustees etc... The corollary of what Pap really seems to be comtenplating is some sort of fundamental overhaul of the entire principle of legal ownership. Basically, it is uber-Marxist fluff, entirely incompatible with humanity and doomed to distortion, abuse and failure in all but the most simple of low-scale communities but entirely symptomatic of the sort of sixth-form totemistic moralising that would occur on, for example, a football forum. Pap, you should read some Rousseau (maybe you have). Great stuff, but pie-in-the-sky.

Inheritance tax is terrible and should be abolished. Completely unfair.

What you saw tonight was a manager with a game plan and a group of players (Terry excepted) committing to that game plan and willing to show bottle and nerve to do so. This is precisely why you will not see England win anything any time soon.

Lol.

**** me. I can't be bothered with anything more than that. You bemoan the lack of meritocracy in inheritance and then you advocate divying up the world equally. If you can't see how stupid that logic is then there really is no point carrying on.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132750/Wales-footballer-Ched-Evans-raped-teenager-drunk-consent-told-judge-thrown-away-successful-career-jailed-years.html My opinion is that "rape" is a totally inappropriate charge for this, unless the girl was actually unconscious at the time of the smashing. There seems to be no suggestion she went with them against her will, no suggestion any physical force was used and no suggestion she asked them to stop at any point. To categorise this sort of thing in the same bracket as committing a predatory violent sexual assault on someone who has indicated no willingness is absurd. Had she no interest in going on the lash that night and getting smashed by a lad she would not have found herself in the hotel. That doesn't seem to be in dispute. Rather than shifting the burden on to the lads to make some sort of judgment as to the mental state of the bird, the responsibility should rest squarely on the bird IMO to maintain a state of awareness where she is capable of exercising her discretion should she so wish. I don't see why the bird being hammered should shift the burden of discerning her thoughts onto the smasher; it should remain with the smashee and her thoughts are evidenced externally by her actions. If you have a propensity to sleep with people you don't want to when drunk, then don't get drunk. It may be that Evans snuck in whilst she was unconscious and slipped her the sausage. Clearly that's not on. That is rape. So maybe that's what happened. Either way, you can't trust a man who tweets that he thinks J-Lo is great.

Cheers for that! Nice one.