Minty

I think there are two different issues here. If current actions are indeed 'staving off an ice age' that's simply by luck rather than design. It could well be that the truly natural cycles of our planet's climate mean we are due another ice age... as I understand it, it is still a long way away in human terms, thousands of years, if not a long time in planetary terms. If our influence with regard to climate change is genuine, then we are having a much more concentrated effect which *could* cause major problems for us within MY lifetime. As a result, climate change is a far higher priority for human civilisation, and we would simply be seeking to correct the changes we have caused ourselves. Developing technologies, some of which may help with regard to climate change, could also be used in the future to protect the human race in the event of an ice age, but that would need to be a seperate issue IMO, way down the line. Ultimately, whether it's an ice age or something else, the planet will probably kill us off eventually, but at this point, we're doing our level best to kick ourselves off IMO.

Absolutely, and hopefully it'll put to bed once and for all the notion that you have to work the players as hard as possible to get them fit. It always was ********, and we've finally had a successful pre-season which has shown that.

Excuse my assumption here and please correct me if I'm wrong: None of us are senior military officials and our knowledge of our military capability is probably not really up there with those who make these decisions, so perhaps, just maybe, this is all a bit of a pointless discussion without any detailed answer as to exactly how it could be done. And, perhaps more to the point, who gives a **** who carries out an operation, and how much we're involved? If it needs doing, and there is agreement amongst nations that it needs doing, and someone does it, then great, job done. Why the need to congratulate or be jealous of any other country and their involvement. As was mentioned previously, the fact it needed doing at all, and the whole situation got to this point in the first place, makes it all rather sad.

Some lovely comments above which perfectly highlight my point. Why take time to read the evidence when you can call people 'idiot tree-huggers' and dismiss all scientists as 'dishonest'... lovely? And just to back up buctootim's point, as I've said before, it's all about the precautionary principle: We don't drive around a blind bend at 90mph because there could be something coming the other way. We did it with the Ozone layer and it proved important. So why shouldn't it apply here? We simply do not know, 100%, quite how much impact human's are having on our climate, and we'll probably never truly know, but given the weight of verified, peer-reviewed scientific evidence at this moment in time, would it not be prudent to be precautionary and moderate our impact. For my kid's sake, and theirs, I think it's entirely the right thing to do.

My view on this is fairly well-known but I'm simply going to ask people to read this site to get answers to some of the many questions that keep coming up: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ If people are genuinely interested in learning more about this subject there is tonnes of evidence out there, and for those with a genuinely open mind about the subject, it is fascinating stuff. Unfortunately, a lot of people have made their mind up on the back of very little information, very flimsy arguments, and a 'la la la, I'm not listening' attitude if something they read challenges their own pre-conceptions. (On both sides of the argument.) Science faces a real struggle when the first things that get mentioned are 'It's an excuse for higher taxes' and it's a shame. If we really are supposed to be an intelligent race, we should be welcoming all research on this subject rather than using it as yet another reason to argue about politics and money and oneupmanship.

You do every game. As the chap at Derby will testify.

I think the point was quite clear... criticism of how the letter was dealt with and responded to. Your points are valid, but secondary to the main issue raised in the article.

Amen.

Compassion costs nothing. This kind of blunt answer simply makes him comes across as though he doesn't care. Which is is exactly what is wrong with so much of society today IMO, and a key reason WHY the country is struggling, because of the selfishness that abounds.

That too.

There's little 'victory' in what has happened in Libya, Afghanistan, or anywhere that has seen significant death or suffering either through the rule of these regimes, or the battles to overcome them. And we have no idea of what will transpire in the future either. The world is ****ed up - frankly, anyone trying to gain credit or kudos for involvement in these things has their priorities all wrong. It may have been necessary, but 'celebrating' it is wrong IMO.

Help comes in many forms - on the face of it, she simply wrote asking for advice. I see nothing wrong with that, and as I illustrated above, there are plenty of helpful places she could've been directed to. But she wasn't. And it wasn't just the lack of information, but the way it was delivered. I get plenty of people write to me in my job, asking for help with things that aren't strictly my remit, or the remit of my employer. But we help them, because frankly, it's the right thing to do. We treat people as we would expect to be treated ourselves. If only everyone else did the same.

Compassion is everything. If someone asks you for help, you should offer what you can. He could've directed her to various places, charities, CAB or other options who can discuss it with her, help her analyse her income and expenses, etc, etc. What he effectively did was say 'I can't be bothered'. This has nothing to do with his salary, the press love that angle but it helps no one and just widens the issues. It has everything to do with him doing nothing to actually help. Nothing more, nothing less.

If a candidate for a job, amongst other things: - "demonstrated a lack of experience of structures and processes" - "did not demonstrate a robust understanding of the issues affecting the organisation" - "acknowledged that the employer assisted in the preparation of answers to the written questions posed by the Committee" - "demonstrated an assumption that his appointment was already confirmed" - "made a reference to something he is required to implement as 'being unintelligible'" ...would you employ them? I wouldn't. But the Government have just appointed the chair of the new Commissioning Board, the single most important body under the proposed NHS reforms, despite these exact concerns from half of the committee. If you're interested, the minutes of the meeting are here. Unsurprisingly there is a clear political split in the vote, and the casting vote went to the Committee chair, Stephen Dorrell MP, a conservative. But even putting politics aside, if HALF of your recruitment committee had concerns like those listed, would you really be comfortable appointing the candidate when you know there are many others who would be far better qualified out there? Very worrying IMO.

Worth mentioning that boxer that Adkins showed the players too? Yes, far too early. Adkins has it spot on - we know where we want to be but nothing is decided until we've played 46 games.

If you have a SaintsPlayer login, go to the Derby Official site for the full 90 minutes.

I came up with examples for most of 'em!

Appreciate it's only Wikipedia but they have the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Port_of_Southampton#Cross-channel_ferries

And here we have exactly why people need to look at themselves first and foremost before blaming politicians (of every persuasion) and banks and everyone else, for them apparently 'not being able to afford' things. Sure, the world is full of problems and a lot of them are caused by politics, banks, capitalism, immigration and god knows what else, depending on your standpoint, but ultimately, the person in control of your finances is YOU, so if you need to moderate your spending but don't, then that's your choice. The phrase 'I/we can't afford it' is one of the most used these days, but actually, if people were honest, what a lot of them really mean is: 'I could afford it if I gave up something else, or didn't waste money on non-essential things, but that's my choice so I can't complain'. There are many who are genuinely struggling, and I really feel for them, but the genuine cases are often overshadowed by people effectively crying wolf.

That is an absolutely horrific crash. RIP Dan, thoughts with his family.

Apologies for digging up an old thread but thought Lee Holmes' comments were worth adding to this thread as they are along the same lines. From: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2480969,00.html

If anyone needs a jog of the memory, here's the list: http://www.oldgrounds.co.uk/index.htm

Personally only a few and I can't remember that much about the old ones now... Very few new places stand out for me, whereas old grounds had a bit of character, even if they were **** in other ways. Newer places may develop that but it only comes with time. Elm Park / Madejski Maine Road / COM Stadium Baseball Ground / Pride Park Filbert St / Walkers Highfield Road / Ricoh Arena

THE best IMO. Ronnie Barker, comedy genius. And of course writer Gerard Wiley was also brilliant.