Happy Face

Absoloutley disgraceful.

I just hide the screen and listen to commentary's at work.

I went to that with my best mate's mum. Sat near the back and to one side, so plagued by the shiteness of the Arena's acoustics, but it was a grand night all the same. I was down the front for that one. I think it was 2004 when I was sat at the back and it sounded woeful. Then again, I was at the back for Radiohead too and I thought they sounded lush.

Fuck off You twait!

Jam Master Jay

Yes he was. I still don't get on with his albums, but helluva show that day Leeeeeeeeeet Loooooooooove Ruuuuuuuuuuuule

My favourite gigs were.... Brian May - Whitley Bay Ice Rink - 1993 - First Gig I went to, reet at the front. Never seen nowt like it before jumping all over, thought I'd die. He fucked up the solo on Bohemian Rhapsody when the fireworks went off. Kelly Preston was lush. Bob Dylan - Newcastle Arena - 2000 - About 2 minutes into every song you realise which one it is and you're astounded at how fresh he keeps every track. First time I saw him and I've never enjoyed him more. Run DMC - Leeds - 2000 - goddamn that DJ made my day. Public Enemy - University of Northumbria - 2003 - Childhood heroes, first time I saw them live. Loved every second. Coming back on Sunday. I can't wait. Beastie Boys - SECC Glasgae - 2004 - Fantastic weekend all round, loads of us went up, great gig, down the front, we were the only ones singing along to Paul Revere while everyone else waited for Intergalactic. Just got the DVD of this tour.

I was at those. Foo fighters were great when they refused to stop playing. I never liked Maximo Park though.

The burden of proof has to lie with the prosecution. You can't say to someone admit it or we'll lock you up for not admitting it, irrespective of if you have anything to admit in the first place.

I didn't mention about them getting released. Well if they aren't released I'd have thought everyone would be happy with that.

Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all. Again not actually looking at what I said. I said criminal. Actual guilty people not fessing up and easing the anguish of parents and loved ones. Again though, How do I know they're guilty? I'll go with a courts decision but if a defendent wants to continue to claim innocence that's their perogative. If you mean cases where someone admits guilt but refuses to co-operate in locating a corpse then gets released, I don't know of any case where that's happened.

Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all.

I fixed the shit out of it Seems IE was set to work offline Dunno why. I've been using Firefox for years and MSN has been fine.

Can someone tell me what to do to make it work? I knew enough to try turning off the pc and turning it back on. Didn't do anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQG_UOuqlM0...ervais%20Extras Little Fat Man Who sold his soul....Little Fat Man Who sold his dream....Chubby little loser... Chubby little loser National Joke... No not chubby little loser.... Pathetic little fat man, No-one's bloody laughing, The clown that no-one laughs at, They all just wish he'd die. He's so depressed at being useless, The fat man takes his own life.... No No... He's so depressed at being hated, fatty takes his own life, Fatty? Fatso? Yeah, let's go with fatso... fatso takes his own life, He blows his bloated face off No... He blows his stupid brains out, But the Twat'd probably miss! Yes Linda I like that! He sold his soul for a shot at fame Catchphrase and wig and the jokes are lame He's got no style, he's got no grace He's banal and facile, he's a fat waste of space Yeah, yeah, everybody sing that last line...1, 2, 3... He's banal and facile, he's a fat waste of space See His pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug! Again See His pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug! Again See His pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug! The little fat man with the pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug! Little Fat Maaaaaan with the pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug! He's the little fat man with the pug-nosed face Pug! Pug! Pug! Pug!

No, never been. Probably not really my thing either. I just wanted something comfy for the winter really. Happy Face, them boots are pathetic. Height of style and sophistication these days maboy. Don't care much for Prada. Some clubs wont let you in wearing it, which is a bit shit really. All the classy clubs must be trying to cultivate a Timberland wearing clientele.

No, never been. Probably not really my thing either. I just wanted something comfy for the winter really. Happy Face, them boots are pathetic. Height of style and sophistication these days maboy.

I wouldn't wear them like. How about these http://www.triads.co.uk/designer-clothing/...ather-shoes.htm

Don't know if this is referring to them, but I think Pistonheads.com forumers have been the largest source of donations.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Why does an innocent man need the right to silence? To protect a loved one? To avoid embarrassment? To Keep an affair hidden? To keep their job? Could be loads of reasons.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights?

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from.

How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? Just start driving responsibly, problem solved I don't drive. But then I don't stab people either, I still believe those accused of doing either of those things should have their civil liberties protected.