Wes Tender

I'm talking about diving, cheating to gain a penalty. Are you saying that if a player dives in the box when it is demonstrated via the video that no contact at all took place, that the penalty might justifiably be awarded because the defender "intended" to bring the striker down? So how does the referee judge whether there was intent to trip? Mind-reading?

You're never going to be convinced, so presumably you're happy that there is cheating like simulation, time-wasting, poor refereeing decisions that can change a match, etc. As for your second point, the flow of the game can be killed by a player pretending to be more hurt than he really is, sometimes when he has faked contact. Otherwise, for several of the incidents which would be the subject of scrutiny, the game has already been halted.

You're talking about the debate by two football pundits, where it has already been pointed out that they often do not know the rules, so cannot interpret them correctly sometimes. As has been suggested, if there were two qualified referees reviewing contentious incidents, if they were split in their opinions, then the on-field referee could have the deciding vote. If both officials agree, then there is no problem. I disagree that there would be more than two or three angles required to establish most incidents. Inside or outside the box only requires cameras along one horizontal plane or two vertical ones for example. In other cases, it should be clear enough from looking at one camera showing the incident as to which other camera angle will reveal the better view taking into account players potentially blocking the view. In many cases, the game need not be stopped for much longer than it otherwise would be in the event of a free kick/penalty/offside decision.

Look, I've told you a thousand times, don't exagerate. It only needs to take the one viewing that establishes whether contact was made in the box/the pass was offside/it was handball, etc. I suggest that once the video viewing has established something irrevocably, that they would stop watching any other angles.

They see the video replay from various angles and make a decision on it. It may be that as they are not experts, they are prone for making the wrong decision, whereas of course, a professional refereee who viewed the replay would invariably be able to make the right one. The referee on the pitch is not able to see everything, so often makes the wrong decision. Meanwhile, football fans see these replays and either accept the pundits conclusions, or if they have some refereeing experience, arrive at their own conclusions. Either way, there is growing discontent with the lack of use of technology which would allow just outcomes in the game, especially where it can be seen that in many cases the tables could be changed both at the top and the bottom by ensuring that the orrect decisions were made. If as you say, the pundits sometimes get their conclusions wrong through lack of refereeing knowledge, then the solution is easy; put an ex-referee on the panel to tell them when they are talking rubbish.

It's actually long overdue to come into the game. It is farcical that the glaring errors of referees can be viewed on MOTD and that the remedy to them could be applied within seconds of an incident and that the use of that technology is spurned by the governing body of the game.

Yes, you're right in that it was Conservative policy to hold a referendum in this last Parliament, but the LDs scuppered it. This time though, if it is promised that a referendum on the EU is sacrosanct and will not be negotiable in the horse-trading of a coalition, then that is something that will be extremely difficult to wriggle out of. Whether the Conservatives try to pull a fast one and renege on that promise remains to be seen, but if they do, then there will be considerable anger from the public and the growing resentment on issues like immigration could boil over into public disorder. As it is, immigration surfaces as one of the hot issues of this election, so even if there is a Labour/SNP/rainbow alliance that forms the next government, they would do well not to ignore it.

You seem to have forgotten the Conservative Party, although that doesn't surprise me at all. I am touched that you thought of me, but I am edging towards voting Tory again in Eastleigh, as a tactical vote for UKIP might end up letting in the Lib- Dumb Thornton, by splitting the Tory vote. Additionally, despite my support for the two key UKIP policies of a EU referendum and immigration curbs, Cameron is now making the right noises by stating categorically that axeing the referendum is a price that he would not consider in return for support in a coalition.

They seem to be one and the same. Here is his Twitter account which makes for some interesting reading. Like TCWTB, he likes to cover himself with Tattoos https://twitter.com/kaneoboy

No, there is more than one, but this is him. https://www.facebook.com/kane.willis His email is kanewillis22@gmail.com, he works at Smartcomms Solutions as a sales assistant (although he must drag down the customers' faith in the company name) and he lives at Bishopsfields Road, Fareham. Not very bright to have so much info so readily obtainable on him.

Nobody's going to believe my result! I don't even believe it myself.

This is a superb example of the educational standards of your average knuckle-dragging Skate fan. The poor grammar, the lack of punctuation, the incoherent, rambling, hate-filled bile makes it difficult to guess whether Kane is a pre-pubescent schoolboy, or an incredibly ignorant adult. My money is on the latter.

Naturally you're not going to level this criticism of lack of balance to those whose views are diametrically opposed, are you?

That.

Show me where I have said that the recession was nothing to do with the global crisis and that it was all Labour's fault and Brown's in particular. Also show me where I have attempted to give all the credit to the Tories to the exclusion of a recovery internationally. You might consider my posts not to be measured or balanced, that is up to you; but please don't try and tar me with something that I didn't say to try and prove a point.

Show me.

Is the bit in bold a reference to Milliband's attempt to blame Cameron for those who drowned in the Med attempting to get into the EU from Libya? Voting must mean a lot to you when you are prepared to go to those lengths, when you could have had a postal vote.

It's really amazing that Alexander has been able to keep his mouth zipped up about these "proposals" from fully three years ago and now that his party is facing a catastrophe in the election (and there is presumably the possibility that he himself could lose his seat to the SNP), he takes a stab at predicting that there will be these cuts in Child Benefit/Child Tax Credits. Does he have any actual evidence that this will happen, that it is actually policy rather than just an option that was discussed some time ago? No, I thought not.

That means nothing. If there was a rumour that Ed Milliband had been photographed with his flies open, Google searches would soar like that. I Googled the Brand/Miliband interview, so I'm afraid I'm partly culpable

I listened to Brand's diatribe to Red Ed about how the big corporations and bankers had their talons deeply embedded into the Tories. He wasn't going to get any rebuttal from Ed there. But the counter position, that the Trade Unions had their talons deeply imbedded into Labour might sit well with the two of them, but it doesn't with much of the electorate. Milliband tried hard to ingratiate himself with Brand by a series of glottal stops so that the Essex lads wouldn't think that he was as posh as he is. It is a common enough device to curry favour with somebody by establishing familiarity through common ground, but I look forward to hearing Milliband's efforts when he is interviewed by a broad Glaswegian Scot, a Geordie or somebody from Zummerzet.

Please read my post again and tell me where I had suggested that all those 10 million are not registered to vote. I would suggest that the majority of Brand's followers fall into that most apathetic group aged between 18-24 and here is their guru telling them not to bother to vote. Then the geeky Milliband tells them that they ought to vote Labour. I wonder who will engage them more. There is the possibility that in a few key marginals it might make a difference, or it could be that some voters in key marginals will be pursuaded to vote the other way because Labour believes that cosying up to a prat like Brand puts them off. Who knows?

The idiot Brand has told those 10 Million not to bother voting and even if a decent proportion of them were eligible to vote in the first place, if they are not already registered to vote because they have followed Brand's advice, it is too late to do so now, the deadline having passed. It seems that he is closing the stable doors after the horse has bolted and that his policy of pursuing these voters is flogging said horse which is already dead.

Well, being the even-handed bloke he is, no doubt we can expect the same statement tomorrow about how he is going to apply the same legislation to sections of the Islamic community against the hate that some of them spew out.

Here's a bit of propaganda for the Tories I found in the Guardian. It's about Labour's record on the NHS http://www.ianbirrell.com/labours-nhs-record-is-soiled-by-failure/

All valid enough comments IMO. Having posted the link to the article, I wouldn't expect you to accept that there was more to it than the story that the Liverpool Echo published and the slant that they have placed on it. A tragedy, no doubt, but Manna from heaven during an election campaign, given that many of their readers, like you, won't wish to accept there is a propaganda element to it.