Kevin Carr's Gloves

Penshaw Monument serves no purpose, when I was a bairn I thought it was built by the Romans or something, but nope it's only about 150 years old. from Wikipedia: On Easter Monday, 1926 a 15-year-old boy, Temperley Arthur Scott, fell to his death from the top of Penshaw Monument. The boy was with three friends and 20 other people when the accident happened. They had got to the roof through the spiral staircase situated within one of the pillars. Witnesses said that the boys went round the roof walkway twice before deciding to make a third circuit. However, Scott fell trying to avoid the other visitors by passing around an open end where there was no protecting wall. Afterwards the spiral staircase to the roof was closed and remained so until a special opening on 29th August 2011, when the public were granted access to the spiral staircase and views from the top of the Monument. This was an initial test to see if it was popular enough to open again for future one-off days. The National Trust did not take bookings, the public simply turned up on the day. It was so popular (over 2000 people), not all those who turned up got to go to the top of the Monument. Many were forced to leave their contact details and will be given priority on the next open day. How bored do you have to be? really? It is on top of a brigantes hill fort so does have some historical interest.

Surely though Penshaw Monument, Washington Old Hall and the kite festival (Washington) aren't really in Sunderland just it's fairly recently changed council boundaries.

Was Gordon Strachan not more successful at Celtic than Martin o'Neill with half the transfer budget and a third of the wage bill?

O'Neills football is atrocious. His main tactic is get an early goal and defend it. His first moves at Celtic were to ensure they stopped shipping goals. he then got Hartson and Sutton and managed to win some stuff.

He has gone one of the most punchable faces out there. Also completely ripped of Stewart Lee's montreal set and tried to pass it off as his own. But he must be good to get as far as he has.... Or his dad being Judi Dench's (and others) agent got him far beyond his natural talent.

the success of the overall policy, is determined by league positions over time. Mike Ashley has a long, long way to go before you can even start to compare, but who is talking about the old regime here ? I'm talking about the lack of ambition of the current regime, something you won't accept, and you have also forgot about yourself proclaiming non-stop a few years ago how this DOF system would bring automatic success, before it was binned by Redknapp at the Spurs you held up as the perfect example under Ramos and Comolli, and also used it as some sort of proof that the NUFC regime headed by Wise was superior to that managed by Keegan, at the time. So what was different between Enrique refusing to sign a new deal and Bernard doing the same? Although the irony of you complaining about a DOF while in a thread praising the transfer policy of a club that employs a DOF does tickle me. I was chuckling at the contradiction there too.

I think you are fairly safe in your claim Liverpool won't sell Carroll on for a profit I've always been fairly safe when I said that replacing the old board with better would be extremely difficult, despite the idiots on NO who disagreed so much with me. Not that it ought to have taken rocket science to see that, chum, but apparently it did. Sometimes the obvious just doesn't sink in with some people. You are not wrong there.

We are now closer to Man city than Rangers are to Celtic.

Liverpool accused of inciting racial hatred. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/21022012/58/premier-league-reds-incited-racial-intolerance.html

So the SUn reckons that 8 Premier League clubs have been dodging tax the way Rangers did. Could we be one of them? Should we be worried?

So America is going to give Alaska back to the Russians then?

I am ignoring all gossip cos it seems all our transfers these days are well under the radar.

So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions He did like, thicko. Fuck you prick.

The huge spending cuts are up for debate depending on your standpoint about how best to bolster the economy or feed the deficit. However Millibands recent statements about economic realism suggest that the Labour Party may be changing their tack on how to spend out of a recession. I would also throw into the mix the whole dependency on a service economy and then the willingness to enable companies to move said service jobs offshore. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/dec/06/politics.money http://www.out-law.com/page-4277 http://www.cwu.org/union-disbelief-as-hewitt-has-no-problem-with-off-shoring.html?archive_page=4

So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions he is stating his position on the assumption that I am a tory. I don't agree with his point that the labour government were totally blameless and the repo 103 order was done through the UK due to our lack of regulation which they couldn't do in the US. I don't agree that that has nothing to do with government regulation policies but he didn't ask me about it.

read the post I replied to Ewerk about two before you butted in. And I never said that Labour were at fault for their spending plans. The Iraq war was very expensive even taking into consideration your weak argument about arms deals and £29Bn is a fuck of a lot of money to throw away completely regardless of how much is spent on anything.

read the post I replied to Ewerk about two before you butted in.

So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism?

At one point all the Tories kept on talking about was how they were going to match Labour's spending plans. Doesn't change the fact that Labour were the ones who actually did it though - tbh I feel like most of these politicians are all pretty similar anyways, until I'm the dictator or this fair land nobody will see any improvements to anything. Labour did what? Further relaxed regulation of the financial service sector allowing lehman Brothers to buy it's own debt from itself and show it as a profit in an attempt to shore up the toxic debt it had taken on in America which it thought would be a short term blip. Wasted approx £29bn on failed IT projects. Lied to parliament and the country in order to get a vote passed for war on Iraq which has cost a further £35 bn and lots of lives one of which was a friend of mine who was from the town of Crook in Durham. Blamed the EU for policies affecting British agriculture and fishing when it was British ministers in the EU council which were backing said policies. Lehman Brothers was an American company so its corporate reporting methods were governed by US law. So thats gone from the list. However, i will say that the collapse of Lehman has everything to do with their fixed-income trading, purchasing sub-prime mortgage backed securities and the inevitable collapse of the bond instruments in 2007. In 2005, US lenders were giving out mortgages that were interest only and that could be rolled over monthly if you couldnt pay that month, just adding the payment missed to the total mortgage. Without proof of income. These deals had 2 years on them before they became proper hard mortgages. The spike in 2005 of these mortgages is in the same month that Lehmans collapses 2 years later, having bought fixed income bonds backed by these sub-prime mortgages. Regulation allowed that to happen but its not UK regulation per se. Whether the tories would have done it too (which is true) is not important, the mechanism of collapse relates to the extension of credit, the construction of fixed-income bonds from this credit and the inability of the ratings agencies to calculate the risk. The game works like this: best brains go to the top investment houses, second best go into brokering and dealing, third best go to ratings agencies, whats left join the regulators. Fitting Gordon Brown into this game is politicised nonsense. Failed IT projects, you do realise that £29bn is about the same level as the interest we pay on the national debt. Such a small proportion to be utterly meaningless. So thats not a factor. Lied to parliament. Yes. The cost of Iraq war? Spending that goes into an industry that has served us well, ignoring ethics and politics, investment into domestic high tech weapons industry has economic benefits, as well as costs. Not accounted for in the post, until they are, thats ignored. The CAP and the usual arguments, yes very bad for us but its only a few billion and dont we still get the EU 'cheque' until the end of this year? What did Labour 'do' then to leave us with this high debt and structural deficit? I cant link Labour's action to the total figures from your post anyway. Not true about Lehman Brothers http://www.guardian....lehman-brothers You might not have understood that very well then, they were using UK law to trick their US accounts. Their US accounts are governed by US law. The loophole in the UK could be exploited under US law, they are a US company and their balance sheet is reported in dollars, not pounds, making the US regulators wholly responsible for the way Lehman's present their balance sheet. Osbourne's point in that applies to the FSA but equally to US regulators who have responsibility for the oversight of accountancy practices of US companies. Again, where does Gordon Brown come into this? Whats utterly hysterical about you trying to shoe-horn blame from the regulatory landscape is that the Tories recently vetoed a landmark EU vote because of the implications for the financial services sector in the UK. Osborne may 'blast' the FSA but when it comes to actually implementing policy, he is more protective of the institutions that created the crisis than any other party would like to be. Thats perfect irony right there. Are you fucking thick? Can you not read? I DO NOT SUPPORT THE TORIES YOU FUCKING HALF WIT. I am able to apportion blame where it lies because I do not support a party. Unlike you a Labour supporter who cannot admit they were hugely incompetent in certain areas which has massively helped to leave us in the position we are in. I am sick of talking to thik twats like you who cannot see how shit the Labour party were in power and when anyone dares to criticise them goes on about how bad the Tories would be because in your moronic world anyone criticising Labour must be a Tory.

At one point all the Tories kept on talking about was how they were going to match Labour's spending plans. Doesn't change the fact that Labour were the ones who actually did it though - tbh I feel like most of these politicians are all pretty similar anyways, until I'm the dictator or this fair land nobody will see any improvements to anything. Labour did what? Further relaxed regulation of the financial service sector allowing lehman Brothers to buy it's own debt from itself and show it as a profit in an attempt to shore up the toxic debt it had taken on in America which it thought would be a short term blip. Wasted approx £29bn on failed IT projects. Lied to parliament and the country in order to get a vote passed for war on Iraq which has cost a further £35 bn and lots of lives one of which was a friend of mine who was from the town of Crook in Durham. Blamed the EU for policies affecting British agriculture and fishing when it was British ministers in the EU council which were backing said policies. Lehman Brothers was an American company so its corporate reporting methods were governed by US law. So thats gone from the list. However, i will say that the collapse of Lehman has everything to do with their fixed-income trading, purchasing sub-prime mortgage backed securities and the inevitable collapse of the bond instruments in 2007. In 2005, US lenders were giving out mortgages that were interest only and that could be rolled over monthly if you couldnt pay that month, just adding the payment missed to the total mortgage. Without proof of income. These deals had 2 years on them before they became proper hard mortgages. The spike in 2005 of these mortgages is in the same month that Lehmans collapses 2 years later, having bought fixed income bonds backed by these sub-prime mortgages. Regulation allowed that to happen but its not UK regulation per se. Whether the tories would have done it too (which is true) is not important, the mechanism of collapse relates to the extension of credit, the construction of fixed-income bonds from this credit and the inability of the ratings agencies to calculate the risk. The game works like this: best brains go to the top investment houses, second best go into brokering and dealing, third best go to ratings agencies, whats left join the regulators. Fitting Gordon Brown into this game is politicised nonsense. Failed IT projects, you do realise that £29bn is about the same level as the interest we pay on the national debt. Such a small proportion to be utterly meaningless. So thats not a factor. Lied to parliament. Yes. The cost of Iraq war? Spending that goes into an industry that has served us well, ignoring ethics and politics, investment into domestic high tech weapons industry has economic benefits, as well as costs. Not accounted for in the post, until they are, thats ignored. The CAP and the usual arguments, yes very bad for us but its only a few billion and dont we still get the EU 'cheque' until the end of this year? What did Labour 'do' then to leave us with this high debt and structural deficit? I cant link Labour's action to the total figures from your post anyway. Not true about Lehman Brothers http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/15/osborne-blasts-fsa-over-lehman-brothers

What investigation cleared Goodwin of wrongdoing. By this I don't mean criminality as actions don't have to be criminal to be worthy of firing.

I didn't say they would. I hate this assumption by idiots that anyone attacking Labour is a Tory. I am not I hate the TOries as myuch as the next man. I am from a Pit village which was just about derelicted by the Tories. I saw my dad sell the turf from his lawn during the strike and then plant the whole garden with vegetables so we didn't have to buy as much. However the fact is the Labour party fucked up big style when they were in power. Things got less fair the rich got richer and the poor poorer, working class lads got killed in a war they lied to get us into, child poverty increased and bankers got richer than ever while everyone else was worse off because the bankers fucked up. And what did they do when GOrdon Brown's pal brought the RBS to its knees? Did they put him through disciplinary procedures so the could withold his multi million pound pension? No they arranged for him to retire and keep the lot.

At one point all the Tories kept on talking about was how they were going to match Labour's spending plans. Doesn't change the fact that Labour were the ones who actually did it though - tbh I feel like most of these politicians are all pretty similar anyways, until I'm the dictator or this fair land nobody will see any improvements to anything. Labour did what? Further relaxed regulation of the financial service sector allowing lehman Brothers to buy it's own debt from itself and show it as a profit in an attempt to shore up the toxic debt it had taken on in America which it thought would be a short term blip. Wasted approx £29bn on failed IT projects. Lied to parliament and the country in order to get a vote passed for war on Iraq which has cost a further £35 bn and lots of lives one of which was a friend of mine who was from the town of Crook in Durham. Blamed the EU for policies affecting British agriculture and fishing when it was British ministers in the EU council which were backing said policies.

She should be sacked from the shadow cabinet and made to stand down.

Does this not sound familiar just before a transfer window "we couldn't buy anyone because we thought we were going to get taken over but it turns out we weren't"