McFaul

I didn't go to the home game for some reason but I went to the away one, oh dear. What a shithole Luton is, that away end you go in to the away end like you're going through the door of someones house. John Hartson's first ever game and goal in football that neet, longest trip ever home on the old Armstrong Galley coaches.

Aye you look a bit Irish, so do I, ye can tell the Irish blood people on here like. J69 looks Irish too.

I enjoyed that in a bizarre way. Never heard it before. See in life and especially football just little things like this, England really are the most insular country in the world, it's like nothing else exists outside of England and we never see crack like this.

I remember some Irish boxer won a medal at the Olympics about 15 years ago, and they were so unprepared for Ireland winning a medal, they didn't have an anthem to play on the tape, so some fucka had to sing "Danny Boy".

Much better anthem than wors imo. I remember singing this drunk 16 year old when Ireland beat Italy in USA94.

Well I know why you do but I donno why I do. Also I know all the words to Fields of Athenry and The Soldier Song.

Nee offence I know it's a rebel song but I actually like it, and agree with the words. We should've fucked off.

What a doilum.

Ye say that, see in London on the tube feels like you're in some type of yank nightmare sometimes. There's 400,000 yanks in London at any one time.

If yee look as young as me at 33 yel be deein areet. By putting that pic up like I realise am fair game for abuse nee one else would be daft enough to put a topless pic up. I meant Wyn looks 50s man not you Obviously I always put question marks against people who have never shown a pic of themself on here like. Biggest shock was that Ant looked like Russell Brand.

Sorry I couldn't get this out my head. It's the one song I associate with Ireland. My point is fuck Paddy's Day, it even pisses me off how many Irish bars there are in England, I bet there's nee English bars in Dublin they'd all get torched, and I must stress I'm not an Irish hater, how could I be. If you took a pint of my blood and did tests on it I'd be more Irish than Paul McGrath put it that way.

What fucks me off is to me we've done more for the world than anyone, I'll argue that till I'm blue in the face. Things like judicial systems, modern parliaments, languange, football, fair play (even though we have been cunts). We basically taught the world how to go on, and as a nation we're known for stoic fairness. Yet the Irish who fair enough had a grievance are seen as these wonderful mythical freedom fighters and especially in America they're seen as Robin Hood types who have fought bravely against the big bad wolf, and any memories of things like Warrington where kids were murdered in cold blood are brushed under the carpet. Look at Chicago when this paddy's day goes on man, it's like the toon if we ever won a trophy.

If yee look as young as me at 33 yel be deein areet. By putting that pic up like I realise am fair game for abuse nee one else would be daft enough to put a topless pic up.

What's your plans on St George's Day? Moaning about Bloody Sunday no doubt. Fuck sake Stevie wise up would ya, "what's your plans for st paddys" hardly needed that in response. Off work but doing nothing, probably fit these new headlights to the car if they arrive Well it's a load of shite, Ant you know for a fact am not Rev IP or some Johnny Mad Dog Adair type but Paddy's Day oh dear. I remember when I was in the sixth form, we all went to Durham to celebrate Paddy's Day, drinking Guinness all day. To this day I couldn't tell you why. As far as I'm concerned Irish are English, and English are Irish, daft days like this where it's imposed on us in this country creates resentment and division and I'm speaking to you as someone with more Irish blood than English believe it or not.

Was in the Sun this, and surprise surprise it was in Liverpool.

Cheeky caant. Tell you what is scary, he's only 8 years older than me, and scarier still for Alex, Gemmill and Catmag, he's only 4 years older than them. He's got nee features. Other than them geps.

What's your plans on St George's Day? Moaning about Bloody Sunday no doubt.

And so it begins and ends Paulwynphotoshops I'm all for other than when he's looking at me in a lecherous way.

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified. The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up. Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions? Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials. The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious? I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent? You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource. I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical. I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in. I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell. The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil. As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway. Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries? I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated. The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why. Because electricity, I mean the type you use in your house or for industry, cannot be stored, it must be constantly generated. You say the North Sea is always windy but it's not. You can have days or even weeks without any, or little wind. Even too much wind stops turbines working. During which time we'd be screwed without any electricity at all - no computers, fridges, TVs, lights, electric trains, telecommunications etc. Therefore you have to have a constant source to rely on as well - a good old fashioned nuclear, gas, or coal fired station. Wind energy can never really make up more than 20% of the total in fact. Says who?

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified. The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up. Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions? Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials. The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious? I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent? You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource. I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical. I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in. I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell. The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil. As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway. Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries? I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated. The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why.

pmsl

Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturing wind turbines causes more pollution than burning fossil fuels? If you manutacture anything at all, it will produce some pollution, but that would be so minimal when you think it's going produce a clean efficient long lasting energy source, it truly isn't worth talking about. It's one of the main arguments Greens use against nuclear technology. Well they're just attention seeking mugs who like a good protest most of them.

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified. The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up. Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions? Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials. The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious? I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent? You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource. I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical. I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in. I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell. The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil. As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturing wind turbines causes more pollution than burning fossil fuels? If you manutacture anything at all, it will produce some pollution, but that would be so minimal when you think it's going produce a clean efficient long lasting energy source, it truly isn't worth talking about.

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified. The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up. Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions? Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials. The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?