NJS

Millions of lives destroyed but a few sad, selfish wankers made money so we should thank the most evil woman in history. No thanks - roll on the death for the proper celebrations.

I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic.

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it.

As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights. I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels.

They do however already roughly correlate mileage with accidents via projected mileage/number of accidents in 5 years questions. Of course these are very arbitrary which as has been said technology may quantify in the future. I just think if they do want to assess risk properly then they should "firm up" the stats or not bother. Another gripe is that insurance in most peoples view is to cope with accidents but the risk of theft via postcode factors are given too high a proportion in my view.

Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories. I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone.

That's unfair. I was making (what I thought was the reasonable point) that people tend to campaign on things that affect them, as prostate cancer doesn't affect women, they're unlikely to take a massive interest. I don't agree with that kind of sentiment, but that's the way it seems to work. I'm not likely to be against raising the profile of health problems, regardless of who they affect but merely being realistic. 44929[/snapback] I remember a few years ago a bloke had the gall to write an article in The Times or one of the other "qualities" which highlighted exactly the point that smear testing was "in" whereas something like 4 times as many men die of prostate cancer ever year. Some utter fucking bitch wrote a "reply" in which she basically dismissed his argument and even made (snigger) references to the size of the writers organ which of course has everything to do with prostates doesn't it? The media promote and campaign on a fashion basis.

Dogma Clerks Mallrats Life of Brian Holy Grail Blazing Saddles Airplanex2 Top Secret The Blues Brothers I'm with Cath on Austin Powers - cringeworthy.

The major problem is that when we see the crime alot of us react angrily and want revenge. The law should not be about revenge, it should prioritise prevention and then cure. I think too many Daily Mail readers would be more appalled at the thought of those young offenders benefitting from their crime than they would be concerned about the crime itself. 43673[/snapback] If the result of a crime is that a waste of space has their life sorted out to the point where they aren't a waste anymore, which lets face it kneejerk punishments short of death won't do, then to me the crime is lessened.

This may not sit easily with the "nail'em uppers" but I'm sure that studies of "unconventional" punishments like the classic mechanics courses for joyriders etc actually caused less re-offenders. Maybe the problem is the the Daily Mail solution has been used too much and the PC one not enough.

When Rob was talking about automatic washing machines were completely luxury items. Even in the 80s if you see the repeats of Bullseye you'll see audience "Oohs" at hostess trollies and food processors so I think he has a point. Having said that I can see where you're coming from as well - Thatcher taught people to want material goods above all else as you did mention.

Spurs were being too difficult and Chelsea were cheap and easy thanks to Bates being desperate to sell.

It will be interesting to see how Abramovitch reacts if and when they win the Champions league. Of course they now claim they are run as a "proper" business and can sustain their wages so in that context Mourinho becomes a bigger factor.

I just remember him - mostly my Dad and Brother mourning his loss. The saddest thing is that as far as I know it would be a simple op nowadays.

I know its the media who over simplify things with money spent but I expect fans to be a little more realistic. Its not me who doesn't think Bellamy was worth any more its other clubs. I know there was a factor of interested clubs knowing we were "desperate" but at the same time you'd think even at 4 or 5m there would be people willing to snap our hands off. Craig Bellamy is a good player but leaving aside everything else I think what we should look at is the fact that we did become that reliant him on the first place. Its like the Shearer situation I have referred to in this thread where theres a load of hype about "replacing Alan Shearer" - what we should be doing is moving away from a reliance on one man no matter who that is and more towards a bigger picture. I'd also add that I couldn't help noticing Bellamy's latest injury is his knees(s) - again.

I'm not defending Souness on the Shearer thing Renton, I'm just pointing out that this "event" is out of the ordinary when it comes to considering spending under any manager. I also disagree that the early Bobby days were any better than the last year - I consider them to be the same thing - a turnover period for a new manager. Net is the only thing that counts for me LM - the "wasted" £8m on Boumsong (not you but others say that) was for me just the Woodgate fee. You decry Souness for getting peanuts for Bellamy and Robert (their true worth?) but I notice you don't praise him for getting more than you thought Jenas was worth. I'm not an accountant but despite Sheperd's BS his bottom line will be the net figure which as HTT has pointed out isn't that great when a couple of years are taken into account even including the recent spree. Nearly all managers operate on an in/out basis - the money they get does depend on fees received and in this summers case wages saved so to simplify it as "money given to invest" is simplistic. Forgoto add for Renton on your point on Arsenal etc: Don't forget that we finished above Chelsea who are now "untouchable". Also teams like Bolton, Boro and Spurs are showing signs of being a lot better - I'm not belittling the 4/3/5 finishes but I do think we were well timed in having that team in those 3 years in relation to the other teams - thst what I was trying to get at.

Robson was left a lot of good players but we still endured 20 months of utter shite. (Given, Goma, Lee, Solano, Dyer, Shearer, Speed, Ferguson (when fit))

I find the "he's spent £50m" as fatuous as Shepherd's "£200m spent since we took over". Bobby spent a lot of money of that squad - he didn't fashion it out of thin air or the academy. He also didn't have to spend big to "replace" Shearer (counting Owen) which has happened to be during Souness' tenure. I also think the top 3/4/5 clubs are further ahead than they were 3 or 4 years ago. The squad still needs adding to - whether thats by Souness or A. N Other - its still only Bellamy whose exit I regret and I do believe we have a better team than 2 or 3 years ago but then again that team wasn't good enough anyway. As to the danger you mention first of all I think Shepherd isn't that stupid. At the worst he won't endanger his "pension fund" as someone put it by overspending. I would also say that the unjudged Luque aside there has been no "waste" as is implied in your post ("cleaning out").

I thought it was funny to see the people who defended her claiming a right to "privacy" when they live vicariously through celebs and would die without the oxygen of invasions of said privacy. IMO the differnce between them is that Moss is "talented" in her field and has then messed it up. Doherty's only talent and claim to fame is his addictions in my view.

So it's okay for Kate Moss to take drugs but not Doherty? Nice to see while people are ripping into the media and fashion people for having double standards you're keeping up the trend. 41430[/snapback] Anybody who burgals his best mates flat is a shit in my book - nowt to do with drugs.

I think .com summed him up in saying he was a true fan - just like Stan Seymour, but he was also completely out of his depth and his time which led to people disliking him (me included at the time). I don't think his death warrants a celebration by any stretch.

I usually say I'm willing to "support" an English team in Europe as long as it isn't one I particularly hate. That means in living memory Norwich and Ipswich. I do however subscribe to the "keep shit teams like Bolton and Boro in there to fuck up their season" theory.

As has been mentioned the hypocrisy of the journos who exposed her takes some beating. I keep wondering if the Mail can be charged with inciting hatred on a daily basis. If H&M cancelled all contracts with all designers and models on coke they'd have nothing to sell. Also loved the Chief Inspector going to interview her. How much an hour? Did you take Coke - No - thanks and goodbye. Did you take Coke - Yes - Have you got any on you now - No - thanks and goodbye. Doherty is still human faeces like.

Get used to the "under the terrorism act" - the police have been waiting for this kind of general atmosphere for years to increase their powers.

Style over content fails again - love it. (Zen and Archos Gmini owner)