ewerk

Aye, because he waited until the last minute and panicked.

Aye and look what happened.

You've got problems with perception?

I agree with alcohol making you lose the sensation, not necessarily a bad thing if you're interested in the lady's pleasure as it delays the inevitable, but I can't say that I've ever not been able to get it up though I know a few fellas who've had that problem.

I just cant understand how people can be so wrong so many times, hes a norwegian footballer, not danish, never was! Born in the US, grew up in Stavanger, Norway So he's American then? Aye. And you're British That's what it says on my passport.

We can be a PLC without being on the stock exchange or having to adhere to stock exchange rules. I imagine the PLC will have to be formally dissolved which doesn't appear to have happened yet. So, is it this dissolution process that is holding things up on the transfer side of things? Were Man City a plc or not? I think City were a PLC, not sure what exchange they were quoted on, if any. I really don't know what the dissolution involves, I imagine it's just a formality and there may not be any practical advantages in dissolving it, but I doubt that's what's holding things up.

We can be a PLC without being on the stock exchange or having to adhere to stock exchange rules. I imagine the PLC will have to be formally dissolved which doesn't appear to have happened yet.

I just cant understand how people can be so wrong so many times, hes a norwegian footballer, not danish, never was! Born in the US, grew up in Stavanger, Norway So he's American then?

I think thats what Hangeland would do. Argee with Gem on this one. 8mill for Curtis would keep snakehips happy! However he is quite young and we would get a few years out of him. Lets just hope he does not turn out like bramble unless he signs for Spurs that is.... *slaps Khay across the back of the neck* I'm not saying spending big = spending wisely. I say that the price tag represents a player's attraction to other clubs which, in turn, represents his perceived expertise. Just like Luque and Boumsong's huge price tags.

That also raises the point of the price of child care, if there was affordable ways of having the kids looked after then both parents could work instead of emasculating men and turning them into house husbands.

My sentiments exactly. I really don't think he's that good, the only reason I would keep him would be if Krul is going out on loan somewhere to get some matches under his belt. I'd disagree. He's not mature enough yet. Give him a few years and yeah, ok. But for now, we need someone more reliable if/when Shay is out. Krul really pulled it out of the bag for us last season with his 'unbelievable' performance but it's a bit much to expect that more regularly. For now, Harps is a capable replacement. I agree with the earlier post on him not being as good and the the other post about them being neck and neck at one point. Why do you think that? I reckon a season out on loan to a near by club would do him the world of good, all I've seen of him is the Palmero game but by all accounts he's been looking good in the reserves. He won't wait around forever and if he spends the next few seasons playing reserve football I think he'll be looking to move. Harper isn't going to improve any further to be a real threat to Given's place so I think we have to start looking to the future.

The cost of running such an institution would be much higher than what is currently paid out in benefits for those kids but there could be long term savings if it works. However such a 'boarding school' would contain kids who are unlikely to be performing so well at school and is likely to employ teachers who can't get a job at a decent school so I'm not sure what the results would be like. But most importantly is the fact that it would be politically unpopular and most likely legally impossible.

Perhaps a slight generalisation there.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Put the 6 eldest in a boarding school - the family can then move back into a 3 or 4 bed semi with corresponding decrease in benefits received. the 6 eldest children then grow up with a very good education and want to make something of themselves and contribute something back into society. Essentially what you're suggesting is a Borstal for kids whose parents are on benefits.

Slightly worrying, hopefully he's not saying that we'll not have significant funds during this transfer window.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. People are (quite rightly) criticising the parents. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions though. You're advocating doing nothing though so you're basically saying nothing, right? I've criticised the parents too. I'm (quite rightly) standing up for the system as it stands, rather than saying something should be done without saying what. As I've said, the system is too generous at the minute. Another alternative to a birth limit is a refusal to pay any additional benefits for anything over four children. If that were the case then I'm fairly sure that those scroungers wouldn't be having 12 kids.

How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? A birth limit for everyone or just for those on benefits?

How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that?

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? It would be a decent shout if it weren't so fucking expensive. That being the point. I thought your objection may have been to forcibly removing the kids from their parents, good to hear you're ok with that bit of the plan.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future, it's the same as the situation with the rest of the scum out there, many of them have kids and don't bring them up well and the cycle will just keep repeating itself.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? It would be a decent shout if it weren't so fucking expensive.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. I'm not suggesting a solution to the situation, just pointing out the problems. Though in the long term clearly it shouldn't be as financially advantageous to have so many kids.

I think making the forum only readable to members will certainly put off potential new members. The name shouldn't be a problem as long as the site is set up to appear high up the google results and has a decent description.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work.

"People who have large families should accept financial responsibility for that decision." Their MP is exactly right with that statement, anyone with half a brain will try and plan their children and consider how they're going to pay for them, of course mistakes can be made but 12 is just fucking careless. What gets me is the attitude that it's society's duty to pay for these kids, the whole "I was born to have children" shit. I've said it before and Thatcher was right when she said individuals need to start taking more responsibility for their own actions.