sadoldgit

A bigger issue is the use of CCTV cameras. WE are caught on camera hundreds of times a day but not a peep about that? The chances of being "fingered" incorrectly are very small indeed. Can anyone here recall a case where someone has been convicted on incorrect DNA sampling? There are pelnty of cases where people have been wrongly identified though. As I said, DNA can be helped to prove innocence as well as guilt. As for liberty, yep, we all have the liberty to get murdered, beaten up, raped, mugged, burgled and we all want to see those people caught and convicted. No easy job, the use of DNA makes it a little easier.

Redknapp was given £6m to keep us up. Are you telling me he spent it well? Spening money does not guarantee success.

It depends who we buy and who we play. We have spent lumps of money before (Redknapp, Burley) without the end result we were hoping for. The intent is plain to see, by buying Championship quality players were a making our intention clear that we want promotion. The sooner we get it the better but all Pardew and the owners can do it is to put together a team that can challenge strongly and that is what they are doing. What happens on the pitch is another matter. If we can manage a play off place this season I will be delighted after the start we had, but I am not counting any chickens and if we are still a Div 1 club next season I would not be surprised. But if we are are would expect us to be one of the leaders of the pack.

I could tell you, but I would have to kill you! I know wht you are saying, but !innocent" people would benefit too by being ruled out of having committed a crime. Not only has DNA already been used to find perpetrators of old crimes, but it has also been used to clear people of old crimes too. The adage that if you have done nothing you have nothing to fear rings true. But as with anything like this, it can be used for good things as well as misused. Unfortunelty we live in a world where people do bad things. Anything that can bring them to speedy justice (in my book) has to be a good thing for the more people realise that they ae very likely to get caught, charged, found gulity and sentenced maybe fewer would commit the crime in the first place? I am an "innnocent person" whose DNA is on the database. I am not overly happy about it but if I don't do anything wrong there will be no need for the police to use it. AS with all databases, the bigger it is, the more effective. Currently the only people on there are those who have committed a crime or those suspected of having committed a crime. Just what you want really. Of course there are those who have done nothing so far but will do in the future, so currently "innocent" - but if they were on the database it could make their detection and conviction easier. (I should add that I work for the CPS and the use of DNA in cases is relatively small but it does have a more important role to play in some of the more serious crimes)

They are all into the Alice Band!

If we are serious about going up we need to buy players who can play in the CCC.

They should just take awy his license. Simples

Hope he does well. Few Prem players would excel in the 3rd division. Good luck to him.

Lowe's quote about the Klingons was pretty funny (unintentionally I should add). That statue was incredible though....could it have been any worse? Why on earth did they even put the damn thing up????

They were a very "hard" side back then, but players like Bremner and Hunter could also play. The fans I dislike the most are Spurrs fans. Always had trouble at White Hart Lane.

Walker Hollywood and O'Neil would put the fear of God into many people - and Terry Paine could be a nasty piece of work too for all of his skill.

I agree totally about the people who pull out suddenly and those who drive into the "safe" distance that you leave between you and the car in front. They can't wait for the traffic to pass before they overtake and pull out no matter what is coming behind them. As for parameters, well I guess that the police would say that driving in excess of any speed limit would be "too fast." I know a lot of drivers think tht they can handle speed and therefore the limits don't apply to them but the simple fact is that they cannot. Reaction times come down significantly the faster you go and any manaouvre you make has an affect on the people around you. Just as there is no "safe" amount of cigarettes to smoke or alcholoci drinks to drink, any any given set of circumstances the "safe" level of speed with situation/conditions. I was overtaken on a very steep, very icy hill last week when just trying to steer in a straightline was a nightmare. I was probably doing about 5 mph at the time and felt that was too fast!

The people I am talking about StL are the ones who just sit in the middle lane come what may with people having to overtake or undertake to get past them. As for speed. It is not speed itself, it is what happens when you encounter problems at speed.

Obvioulsy I am talking about the way some people drive on the roads here, which are often overcrowded and dangerous. I also think is is a bit unfair calling someone brain dead jsut because they want to drive at a speed they feel safe with. The roads are there for all to use and I don't think it to much to want to be able to get to A to B without being harrassed by someone who feels they have a right to drive faster. Wouldn't you rather get to your destination a bit later than end up in A & E or perhaps even dead? How would you feel if you caused the death of another person because you were impatient and overtook at the wrong time/place? There are few things worth risking your (or someone elses) life for. I don't thing a car journey is one of them.

The speed limit is just that. For many it is the lowest limit possible and they cause problems because they think it is okay to drive 10 or 20 mph faster. If you drive on a motorway reguarly you will know that probably the majority of drivers drive faster than 70 mph. Just because the limit is 70 mph it doesn't mean that you can't drive at 60 mph, nor if it is a 60 mph limit that people can't drive at 50 mph if that want to, without some idiot tailgating them. What is more of a problem is are the people who think it is perfectly okay to drive in the middle lane of the motorway when the inside lane is free. The middle and outside lanes are for overtaking. Once done so you should move back to the inside lane. The standard of driving on the roads is appalling and it is mainly down to a lack of patience. Who says that any of us has a right to get to our destination faster than the person in front of us? Yes it is a pain when the person in front is driving more slowly and we want to get on with our journey but it is the decsions that are taken then that often result in RTAs. Trust me, it doesn't make you more of a man if you overtake another man because you think he should be driving faster. Recently a guy went past me on a narrow county lane just before a blind bend. If anything had come round the corner it would have been a head on collision. I saw another guy tear round a roundabout with one hand on the wheel whilst talking on a mobile. It is the same kind of mentality. I know what I am doing, everyone else are idiots. As for speed not killing. If you suddenly become stationert when doing 5 mph you probably won't die. Try it at 70 mph and your chances of staying unhurt chnage drastically. Speed kills because forces increase when you hit something. It also means that you have less reaction time when you make a move. It is the people who think that speed is not dangerous who are the dangers on the road in the main.

I agree with you about John McGrath Dave, but we had many players in our side at the time who could and would mix it (as a number of other teams did). I still think that the "dirty" tage against Leeds has not been warranted for a long time, just as the Boring Arsenal tag means nothing nowdays.

The more evidence the police/CPS can compile against the defendent(s) the more likely a guilty plea before the case goes to trial, which is better for the tax payers (trials, even magistrates trials, are very expensive) better for the victims, better for the witnesses, better for everybody. We all want justice, we all want to live in a safer world surely? The use of DNA evidence goes a long way to make these things possisble. Have there been any cases where a conviction based on the use of DNA evidence has been found to be unsafe? We should also remember that a DNA database can rule people out of having committed a crime.

And he did like to play certain players, like Telfer, who many didn't rate. It works when you get results, it doesn't when you don't. Strachan didn't fancy Kevin Davies but the bloke is still doing a decent job in the Premiership.

Whilst I am not a big fan of Platini, I do think there is a lot to be said for clubs being forced to live within their means. A wages cap on players would be near impossible these days but a cap on clubs wage bill in line with their turnover could work.

Ah but is it still warranted? We were tagged with being an "Alehouse" outfit by Bill Shankley (and the comment was well warranted!) but would you say that was still true of SFC?

You are right, many people have plenty to hide but probably have done nothing wrong. The point is that if you have not committed a crime you should not be worried about your details being on a database. Supermarket chains and marketing companies probably know more about any of us and our habits than the police!

Sadly crime exists. Many crimes are solved when DNA tests are taken and checked against the database. If records were constantly destroyed there would be no sizable database. My details are on file even though I was not found guilty in the case I was involved with. Not great but I would rather that the police's job was made easier than worry to the nth degreee about my own civil rights. You are right about convictions but half the battle is finding the correct suspect and building the case from there. DNA identification helps to pinpoint suspects. If people didn't rob, murder, rape, fight etc etc we wouldn't need to give the police such measures. People can moan all they like about their civil rights but once you are the victim of crime you cab bet your life that you want the people that did it caught and convicted as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Leeds may have been "dirty" in the 70's but many of those players are either dead or long retired.

They are a hazzard, but less of one. They are only a hazzard to those who think they are on a race track. Speed kills, not lack of it. I work in a police station and see the pictures that are the result of people driving too fast. Not nice.

The problems on the roads aren't caused by the slow and cautious, they are caused by the idiots with no patience who think they own the roads and need to pass everything and everyone in their way and the at the speed limits are starting points not limits. The standard of driving on our motorways is appalling and they are death traps. I was chatting to an advance driving instructor recently who said that her job was not to improve people's driving, but to help them stay alive on the roads. Pretty much says it all.