NJS

Just to clarify I'm not implying any kind of real comparison between the McCann's and "real" child abuse - I was mainly alluding to the opinion which I tend to support that an "underclass" family who'd done the same in Benidorm would have been treated with a lot less sympathy. My point was that assuming being poor or however else you define it does not make people more or less likely to be child abusers and the rich have an "abuse culture" of their own. I'd even count a lack of discipline from middle class families as an abuse of sorts in allowing their kids to grow up without a concept of considering other people. Of course "decent" working class discipline which I was subject to doesn't have to involve physical abuse. Turning to the points about Thatcher and the industries she killed I honestly think economics were way down the list of her motivations below real spite and at best a misguided notion that people would be "Better" in some kind of brave new world she imagined (but wasn't prepared to create). There is a sort of shallow sense in her "society" stance in that looking after your family should be your main ambition. Where she got it wrong was that thinking that if everybody did that, then things would fall into place for everyone else - I think once your family are sorted then the decent thing is consider others and also appreciating that working with other people is in fact a way of benefiting yourself.

I certainly accept that there is a "price" to what I would call a more free society. As I've said before I've read Muslims defending their opression (my view) of women based on a notion that we have more rape. I don't think theres a correlation there but even if there was I think a happy medium towrads our free society is preferable. On the specific notion of an underclass I find it a bit hypocritical for the "elite" to look down on such people to such a degree. Thatcherism especially could not have benefited so many people without the economic "front line" of the unemployed to allow her economic policies to "work". Indeed if there was a miracle cure to make everyone on benefits suddenly get jobs to some degree the economy would be fucked. Having said that, like most people, I do find the benefits mentality to be depressing but I'd also argue that the perceived lower standards of morality which you allude to isn't the preserve of the underclass. To some degree the McCann's neglect of their kids is to my mind comparable to the treatment of baby P (tin hat on) in that being "rich" certainly isn't a guarantee of moral rectitude.

Certainly - but the angle taken by the media seems to be "My God there are "decent" people on the list" which would seem obvious to me - it's like when they were surprised that football hooligans weren't all dole scum.

It is a very lefty/student stance to want to ban them and not one I hold - I think we should be able to laugh at their stupidity and if necessary kick the shit out of them as well. I agree with the privacy issue but it's funny how members of an organisation which is all about "pride" are so ashamed to admit it.

The actual "science" behind homeopathy is bollocks imo - the tiniest concentration of a substance in water (sometimes lower than normal) cannot affect any cure - if its all about water retaining the "memory" of the substance then that would apply to all the crap (literally in some cases) that was ever in the water. However I think it can be beneficial in that studies show that if the average GP appointment of 10 minutes is extended to 30 minutes which mirrors a typical "alternative" appointment then a placebo (which is generally what homeopathic medicine is) works with the same frequency. In other words the unhurried, friendly, reassuring chat with a doctor is what "tricks" the human mind/body into making itself feel better about itself which can lead to positive results. Note this would apply in general to private doctors as well. I agree with Renton that people should be perfectly free to try homeopathy but I don't think the NHS should pay for it.

There is the classic where we had Shearer on trial and put him in goal (though the full truth is that it was only part of the game I think).

Wicked question. I started going regularly home and away at the start of 1980. Before that I probably saw 30 or 40 games in 70s. From 1980 to probably 2004 I'd guess I went to between 25 and 40 games a year - probably 30 on average - christ this is frightening - which works out at 720. Since 2004 I've probably been to another 40 or 50 which means about 770. Fucking hell.

Made a big difference in midfield recently - we're fucked.

This what really bugs me. Not only to we have players who can't pass we have players whose shooting is woeful. How the fuck these blokes get to this level without such a basic skill is beyond me. It's also beyond me that when a player has an obvious weakness (eg Andy Cole and heading) why the hell it isn't worked on extensively in training. What the hell do they do "all day"?

The play-off loss by a million miles. Small beer in the real scheme of things but still stupidly painful. Having said that as I get older apathy seems to be closer to the surface - I tend now to think that Keegan's return was like a hand to a drowning man that let me breathe for a few seconds before his departure has pushed me under like a rescuer with an oar. I think its going to take a lot to make me care as much again.

Totally.

your thinking Kinnear would have made a well thought out tactical substitution though Even Allardyce got the hang of chucking strikers on when you're losing at home. I thought he would usually bring a defender on ? Only against a "good" team (ie top 10).

your thinking Kinnear would have made a well thought out tactical substitution though Even Allardyce got the hang of chucking strikers on when you're losing at home.

The 75% is a joke but he is one of our problems. We cannot keep possession and build consistent attacks because too many players in the team give the ball away a criminal amount of times - Enrique, Guthrie, Butt, Duff, Guttierez, Ameobi AND Martins have been the culprits in the last two games.

Martins should have been dropped after last week. Owen would have scored if he'd started and had his eye in. (yes I know Martins crossed it but he would have come on as sub by then in my world).

Last week I was thinking it should be obvious to warn your centre-halfs that they're up against a notorious cheat and to be careful - suitably avoided going by their actions. This week I would have though that they might mention a centre-half that's decent from corners and to make sure he is marked - suitably avoided. A word also for the fucking fairy on the line who couldn't stop it. Didn't deserve to win - just like last week, pass after pass going astray against a shit team. I've also decided Guttierez IS the new Cordone. Shola has had his bi-annual good spell and is now the Shola we all know again. Enrique was terrible. Funny how the owner seems to have missed the key to a football team isn't the structure or the finances to a large extent or even the players - its having a MANAGER who has the slightest fucking clue what he is doing - thanks once again you fat cockney cunt.

Anyone see that Tourettes doc where the bloke I'm sure just used the disease as an excuse (I think Tourettes is more random) and came out with the immortal: "Ho, Charles, you jug-eared cunt, does Camilla take it up the shitter or what?"

Papers haven't been in Fleet St for years.

Theres a differennce between rounding up people and killing them (which he did) and people dying of starvation brought about as an unintended result of agricultural planning which didn't work. I suppose thats semantics but he didn't make killing an industrial process like Hitler.

Sent shivers down my spine when I read that this morning - up there with Liam's free kick as my favourite football moment.

It was terrible for me for two reasons, firstly I honestly thought that Man U would become our rivals (as they did all too briefly) and selling them our best player made no sense, and secondly I thought we'd instantly gone back to be being the selling club we'd always been. I still think it was wrong to effectively write off that season in January but can't argue with the result the nest season - though a Ferdinand/Cole/Beardsley combo could have been even better.

More of a hero to me than Shearer by a million miles. I loved the unashamed joy he got from scoring and he summed up our "arrival" on the big stage. I know he marked his card for a lot of people but I judge people by what they do in the shirt and he'll always be a legend to me.

My concern is the thought of a 14 year old who would be "freaked out" - how introverted could she be? Probably a case of "stupid" racism rather than "malicious" racism - I'd tend to have mercy.

There seems to be an irrational need on some peoples part to believe Enrique is good (a lot on N-O seem to have it). I defended him last year on the basis of a bit of potential, his age and the adjustment factor. However this year he has been terrible and I won't defend so called premiership footballers who fail so many times to pass to a team mate. This did apply to others on Sunday (uncharacteristically Jonas) but Enrique is a constant culprit. The only problem is that while I think Bassong may be a better defender, his forward play is wank. If we get the chance to rebuild the squad either in Jan or the summer I'd be looking for new left backs.

Olbermann a week late.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27652443#27652443 ...but well put. Indeed. There was a huge campaign by Mormons - the religion of forced child brides and no black members before 78 - maybe they could argue they were forced to give up polygamy but that was just another tenet of their con-man founder - the root reason is the usual Christian bigotry.