scotty

You probably weren't his first, Bearsy.

I was about to post a reply to that, but suddenly remembered which website I'm currently on. Phew.

I'm sorry I havent a clue, possibly the funniest programme on radio imho. And he is excellent as chairman, very funny comedian as well. And I'd forgotten Connolly and his uncontrolled hilarity halfway through his own jokes. Dreadful stuff, I find him unwatchable.

Oh, and if we aren't just referring to tv here could somebody, somewhere, please explain to me why Susan Calman, Mel Gydroch or Sue Perkins despoil our airwaves with such grim regularity? Back to tv, I cannot stand Andy Parsons. His scriptwriting is ok, but his delivery is even more annoying than Russell bloody Howards, and thats saying something.

While I agree with your general sentiment, you've clearly never watched Miranda.

Could be partly down to Big Ron declining to comment on the incident, while that c*nt mourinho is making headlines bleating endlessly about a conspiracy against chelski. He really is fast becoming the new ferguson.

He got hacked down in the box against everton as well. But it evens out. We could easily have lost against chelsea if a pen decision hadn't gone our way.

True. And fwiw, I don't believe for a moment that Chelsea would have loaned us Bertrand if they had expected us to be anything more than mid-table makeweights this season.

Kept him sharp for what, turks?

Lambert Goes To Liverpool? Or either of the other two.

I have long believed that a lot of prem transfers are made in order to deprive the selling club of an asset. The buying club don't necessarily intend to use the player much, if at all. That said, in Lamberts case I initially reckoned it more likely that the dippers were buying the lambert/lallana partnership.

I remember Peter Osgood getting a right lashing from the milton. "Osgood is a w*nker" being the least offensive chant, iirc.

Lets hope Buck Saint didnt thump him in the mouth after mistaking him for a chelsea player. How stupid would that be.

The firearm situation in the USA is deplorable, by almost any standard. I also detest their global political and military activity, not to mention their approach to health and welfare. But as far as guns go, that genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Even if they could be persuaded that an armed civilian population might not be such a great idea after all, there are so many guns already in circulation that it would take decades for a change in the law to have any meaningful effect. It would simply become a re-run of Prohibition, and probably about as successful.

If this score stays the same I'll be knocking one out myself.

The USA has about 10.3 gun-related deaths per 100k of population per annum. That's over 40 times as many firearm deaths than the UK, which has about 0.25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate It is utterly absurd to suggest that levels of gun ownership or availability are similar, and even more absurd to imply that it makes no difference to the death rate. The murder rate per 100k in the Americas is 16.3, compared to 3 in Europe. Someone in America is more than 5 times as likely to be murdered than their European counterpart.

:lol: What if sammy the saint has spiked that bovril with rohypnol?

Our manager can play mind games via the media as well as mourinho can? Great stuff!! Keep it up, Ron.

Fortunately for who?

Got to say, I'm not sure. I am sure it was a dive, and he should have been booked for that, but whether the ref was going to book him before he got gobby? You have to wonder whether the ref was swayed a little by the immediate pleading for a pen almost before he fell down.

Fourthed. Had this discussion on the post-match thread. I've watched it several times, and my strong opinion is that it was a dive, not a foul.

On a side note, I did the usual score prediction with another poster from here before the game. One of us usually calls it right, and I think I'm currently just ahead on pints owed, but today he called a 3-1 defeat and I reckoned we'd lose by at least 4 goals. Bedwetters of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our dignity.

The ref gave just about every call to chelsea bar that one. I couldn't see anything in that penalty call except fabregas deciding whether he had a chance of making or scoring a goal, then deciding the best option was to try and draw a foul. The ref had a decent view of it, and while I can see Whiteys point that dissent might have been the reason for the yellow, I can't agree on that either. He showed the card far too quickly for that, I'm sure it was for an obvious and cynical dive. Then again, its hardly surprising given chelseas antics all over the pitch today, they got away with most of their play acting.