Minty

It'll take something special to beat Niemi's 'over the top' save at St Mary's a few years back...

Bloody hell, that happened quick, completely missed their whole innings... nice one Hants.

I put you in the category 'People I choose to know in real life' which means you automatically have my respect even if (as I obviously know before now) we have a different opinion. You don't believe it is something we can control - fair enough - but there is, whether you or I like it or not, plenty of evidence out there to say that we certainly influence it. So at worst, placing restrictions on industry is IMO 'over-cautious', and with entirely honourable intentions. I cannot see how it can be called deceitful as that implies it is being done with entirely alternative motives in mind. Fair enough, and nothing I say will change that, unless you choose to read up more in your own time. As you know, I'm not the kind to preach to others, I just provide links and information I have read, where it is welcomed, for others to judge on their own terms. Well this is an interesting point - I actually agree that everyone who is potentially contributing should contribute to the bill but naturally a spotlight falls on industries that are deemed to contribute more to climate change. I don't think that is right - it is a far bigger problem than just those specific industries, and we all, myself included, use them and many other things that contribute. Every business uses electricity after all, and that has to be produced somehow, mostly with fossil-fuels, so it is wrong to only focus on certain industries. The key is, IMO, not necessarily to punish those industries or those who use them, but to help make cleaner alternatives more attractive, so that the decision to de-carbonise becomes a sound business decision, not a result of being beaten with the carbon stick. As for light bulbs, there's plenty of decent ones out there now, so you buying crap ones is your own fault. ;-) We just replaced 4 x 70W tubes in the shop, with 8 x 5w LED bulbs... 280W of energy vs 40W... it's a no brainer from an electricity bill point of view, and the lights are fine. Maybe we are, but what if we're not? To assume we're not is far more arrogant IMO, because it means we're essentially granting ourselves licence to do what we please, and sod the consequences. I'm just saying we need to keep looking into it so we know more. I don't think we'll ever have truly accurate predictions, just the best that we can come up with based on our knowledge at the time. Like many things in life, it's one big risk assessment... if we wait for incontrovertible proof, it may be too late. Hence my 'precautionary principle' stance. Given that there is already a lot of evidence out there that support the AGW theory, what evidence would you require to actually convince you? Do you have in mind something specific? Given that you or I aren't experts, how do we decide when we've seen enough evidence to convince us? And personally, I think the thought of treating the Earth as 'disposable' like a carrier bag is far more arrogant than looking into how we have influenced it's climate, and wanting to perhaps make amends if we have done so. What right do we have to just up sticks and potentially go and ruin another planet? As a supposedly intelligent race, I think we have the capability to assess our actions and behaviours and amend them where we can see we have done harm. If we hadn't done that in the past, we might all still be cannibals or still at war or doing god knows what that we stopped years ago. Anyway, far more interesting than talking about VAT eh?

Crikey, George is back. That's good, we all miss his reasoned debate and open-mindedness...

Yeah, my wording was actually poor there... I should've said we don't know for certain if we can control it... I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that we CAN potentially control it, by virtue of the fact that we have contributed to it in the first place, and helped create the situation. Therefore by amending our behaviour accordingly, we might be able to 'control' it, or at least lessen the impact. To assume otherwise is akin to sounding the 'abandon ship' alarm IMO. If viewed in isolation, then its easy to see why "restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc" are viewed as a negative thing by some, but the point is that they need to be put into context more clearly as to why they are needed. Bottom line is that ongoing research is needed to learn more about what is happening, why, how etc, etc, for the sake of us as a race. Money for that has to come from somewhere, and so it is usually in the form of a levy or tax... these are not 'defences', but means to help us understand better what we face, and how we can adapt to it, or make changes to ensure our survival. At the most basic level, I simply don't understand why people think we should not continue to research Climate Change while at the same we would all agree that we should continue to search for cures to diseases/Cancer etc? What, actually, is the difference when it comes to the future of the human race?

Any arguments only tend to come from those who can't work out that there is no such thing as 'better' in this discussion... there are just different solutions for different needs and taste and budgets. Each to their own. I will make suggestions to others based on my Android experiences, others will make recommendations based on their knowledge of iPhone, and those making the choice just have to go out and work out which best fits their need. Getting into arguments about it is, frankly, bizarre, but then the same happens about cars and computers and even clothes and shoes and other purely subjective stuff. Twas ever thus and will always be whilst there are thick ***ts in the world.

Why is it funny? That's what bugs me the most about Climate science... instead of simply wanting to learn more about it, so that we can take appropriate action, the political nature of the endless discussions about the climate only seem to generate black and white polemics, and claims of 'victories' and 'defeats' for those involved, and a notion of laughing at those who were wrong, and smug feelings from the 'other side'. Forgive me for thinking that we're actually all in this together, and that any wrong predictions simply take us ALL back a few steps in the realm of trying to predict the impact of climate change, and how we plan to adapt to it. I've read one of Tim Flannery's books, and he did make predictions about where the climate could be headed. Scientists do so all the time. They're often wrong, but that's the nature of science. If they are wrong, we should actually be encouraging them, and all others in the same field, to look more closely at their methods, the science behind things, to make more accurate predictions in the future. At the same time, we need to remember that they will never be exact... we are dealing with something that we're learning about all the time and that we cannot control. Irrespective of a (any) government decision to sack these guys or any other action, our entire future existence still depends on learning more about the climate and how it will affect us. Sadly, it seems a lot of people are only concerned with their short term finances, rather than the ability of our planet to support our very existence, but hey, each to their own I guess. As I've said before, I would rather that governments took a more precautionary approach, for the sake of my kids and grandkids, than to relegate its importance in favour of achieving 0.3% growth in GDP in the next year, or whatever else they think is going to get them voted in for another 5 years.

What you have to remember is that Tax and NI on wages are due when the money is earned, not necessarily when it is physically paid. So for wages that were earned, because the player was under contract at the time, but just not paid because they didn't have the cash, then that Tax and NI was due the month after it was earned. If the money being paid out is some kind of negotiated settlement after the termination of the contract then that would be different, and it may even be that the tax liability falls to the individual player as they are no longer under PAYE (like a contractor or someone self-employed) but then it goes beyond my realm of experience so I couldn't say for sure.

How do marathons sit with you Turkish? Seeing as I'm planning one next year, for charity?

You seem to be forgetting that I was actually a 'jizz-mopping mong', not cabin crew.

Must be all the make-up I wear...

When did he start at Southampton Airport? I may have worked with him...

I would suggest this thread already has 91310 reasons and counting...

If an employee earns money in month 1, I have to pay HMRC by day 18 (I think) of month 2, whether i physically pay the money to the employee or not. That liability to HMRC is what the previous court cases were about and why HMRC were banging on the door to get their money. As a result, all the PAYE and NI due on the wages was part of (one of) the CVA(s).

May seem obvious, but just focus on getting the customer service right. Learn how to handle difficult customers - recognise when you're getting wound up by one - know your own limits and where you need to call your supervisor - treat others how you expect to be treated - ALWAYS resist the urge to say those little things that are on the tip of your tongue when you've got a pain in the arse customer who needs bringing down a peg. In this day and age when people are getting more and more peed off with foreign call centres and staff who only follow a script and can't deal with the idiosyncrasies of their personal situation, if you just listen to them, deal with what they want efficiently, and don't try the hard sell, they'll learn to trust you and may then ask you about products you can sell. This is easier if you have regular contact with the same people so may not be as appropriate in your role, but the basis of it is still sound.

Anyone care to discuss emotional IQ? Given that this is a knee-jerk mongboard of football fans* who can barely post a single post without ignoring the subject completely and just slagging off other posters... could be fun? * - not necessarily my opinion, more a conglomeration of others'...

As I said previously, I think that reflects more on the likes of Walcott and Milner than just Rickie - but that 'cutting edge' was also, in theory, provided by Gerrard and Wilshere too... so a bit more circumspection needed from him I think.

I honestly don't know - I posted the thread initially to get others feedback because I'm not sure what might or might not be appropriate. To be honest though, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lets B Avenue... the primary thing we should be seeking is justice, and public awareness of a case shouldn't affect that. In theory. And lets be honest, as much as you or I would love it to be the case, the 'public' at large simply won't change their attitudes overnight... Turks is right, there is almost an appetite for news about this kind of thing, like a real-life soap opera that they are watching and gaining enjoyment from nearly. That's the impression you get sometimes, especially when you hear people talking about it in the street or down the pub...

Poor old Carbs, Pietersen screwed him up good and proper there...

Spot on from Keown IMO. I think to be fair, there is not the widespread negative reaction that many thought there would be, and most of the opinion is quite considered and well-informed.

This story obviously stems from Michael Le Vell's exoneration, and the primary story is concerned with rape defendants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24037910 But is there a case for all defendants, up to a point, to be anonymous until proven guilty? It shouldn't be needed really - if someone is found to be innocent, they should be treated as such, no matter what the allegation, but we all know that doesn't happen, and I think we have all, at some point or another, probably watched a story like his and thought 'well, no smoke without fire' or similar. It's arguably a problem with wider society - and social media and the internet help in the proliferation of accusatory stories and opinions prior to any guilt being proven. But beyond looking at our own morals and behaviour in these circumstances, is there something we can or should do about it?

Inspired by pap's recommendation for doubleTwist on the iPhone(!) thread, I wondered what other Android apps others would recommend - for any purpose (within reason!)? I don't use many (thanks in part to my old phone not being able to handle them particularly well) but always interested to hear about good apps that make something easier/better.

All the way back in 2007 I believe...

Cost alone should never be the deciding factor unless you've got too much money and not enough scruples IMO. People will pay for good quality, and that is (just one reason) why iphones used to be top of the pile, because it was worth paying more for a better phone. But now with the quality of Android phones increasing all the time, the cost factor is coming into focus more and Apple are relying somewhat on their brand to maintain prices. I just got a Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini as an insurance replacement for my stolen HTC and considering it is a lower spec version of the G3, it is still way ahead of my old HTC and a very nice overall experience. Most importantly, it does what I need, and for a fraction of the cost of an iPhone.

Whilst you are probably right if the game, and the team, were viewed as a whole, we all know what the blinkered fans and some (not all) of the media can be like... and that many of them would interpret such comments as implying that SRL was being singled out. The comments probably weren't intended as such but it's not hard to see that they will be taken that way by many looking for a black/white reason for the poor performance, and perhaps Gerrard should be a bit more cautious in what he says... he should know more than most that things can be twisted very easily.