DaveR

Escape to Victory - what a movie. Supposedly Kevin Beattie accepted an arm wresting challenge from Sly Stallone, beat him right and left arm, and Stallone never spoke to him again. There was also a rumour that John Wark's lines were dubbed by a Hungarian extra because his accent was easier to understand.

5 best players seen live: Cruyff, Best, Ronaldo (the fat Brazilian one), Platini, John Wark. Unfortunately I saw Cruyff in his last season playing at Barcelona and Best for Fulham, Ronaldo looking very uninterested for Inter, and tbh I don't remember Platini. John Wark though.....what a player.

Saturday 11th May 2013 Aston Villa 1 Chelsea 2 Sunday 12th May 2013 Stoke 1 Tottenham 1 Everton 2 West Ham 0 Fulham 1 Liverpool 1 Norwich 2 West Brom 0 QPR 1 Newcastle 0 Sunderland 1 Southampton 1 Man Utd 2 Swansea 0 Tuesday 14th May 2013 Arsenal 3 Wigan 1 Reading 0 Man City 2

I agree with the first, and the aspiration of the second, but encouraging economic development in cities outside London will not be achieved by building houses there (or by shifting public sector jobs there - that's been tried already).

"And let's be honest, everyone is hoping they go all Liverpool on us aren't we." Difficult to see it happening in the short term. Man U have been far and away the most secure of the 'Big Four'(never outside the top three in the history of the Premier League). In fact, Liverpool are the exception (so far) of a club who seem to have fallen out of the Big Four. Top four finishes in last 10 seasons: Man U - 10 Arsenal - 10 Chelsea - 9 Liverpool - 5 - none since 08/09.

When people talk about Fergie having fallen short in European achievements, it's worth noting that no manager has won the Champions Leagure more than twice, and, comparing him to say Guardiola, it's arguably more impressive that Fergie won it twice with the same club but with two completely different teams, both of which he effectively built himself.

I would put the questions slightly differently 1. do we want there to be social housing? answer, yes 2. on what terms should it be offered i.e. how cheap, what sort of tenure, and how allocated? This is a political decision, whether local or national, and there is obviously no single, simple answer. In particular, you ideally want a system that does not incentivise dependence, but recognises the reality that some people may need social housing for life. 3. Who should own and run it? This is an entirely separate question from 2. My reason for preferring independent bodies over local authorities is a simple one - all other things being equal, specialists do a better job than generalists. There are also some more particular reasons, e.g. local authority boundaries are pretty arbitrary (particularly in London) from a housing perspective, and that makes the system needlessly complicated.

Next Everton manager - Martinez current bookies favourite, followed by Phil Neville, Lennon, Laudrup and Vitor Pereira (who he?) Odds also being offered on Hughes, Poyet, Benitez, Malky Mackay, Lambert, Duncan Ferguson (!!) and Carragher (500-1). http://footballburp.com/news/odds-on-next-everton-manager-horrify-everton-fans/

I had a quick skip through the report. I have to say that my impression was that the authors (a seemingly impressive bunch) have not really addressed the key issue in the terms of reference i.e. ownership. They recognise that for the last 20+ years most of what has been happening in the area of social housing has been through independent organisations, not local authorities at all, but then never ask themselves the key question i.e. why should Southwark be in the business of owning and operating social housing at all? I note that the Peabody Trust came close to suggesting that but they obviously realised that it was outside the true terms of reference for this exercise.

Saturday 4th May 2013 Fulham 2 Reading 0 Norwich 1 Aston Villa 2 Swansea 0 Man City 2 Tottenham 3 Southampton 0 West Brom 1 Wigan 1 West Ham 1 Newcastle 0 QPR 0 Arsenal 2 Sunday 5th May 2013 Liverpool 2 Everton 2 Man Utd 3 Chelsea 2 Monday 6th May 2013 Sunderland 2 Stoke 0 Tuesday 7th May 2013 Man City 3 West Brom 0 Wigan 2 Swansea 1 Wednesday 8th May 2013 Chelsea 2 Tottenham 2

"Just because something is not illegal does not render it sensible , responsible or safe. Therefore pointing out the legality of this practice doesn't really advance matters." OK - so how about when something is illegal, but safe? Like going through a red light pedestrian crossing when there are no pedestrians? As expected, this thread deteriorates into the same tired, pointless debate, where a bunch of the same people try and define the 'problem with cyclists'. The overwhelming problem with cyclists is that they still get run over and either killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles when (in many cases) it is avoidable. I am all in favour of encouraging anybody who gets on a bike to cycle safely and be considerate of other road users, and dealing very harshly with the thankfully small minority who put other people at risk (starting with the idiots who every morning ride like a bat out of hell down the Surrey Canal path despite it being pedestrian priority). But all this sh!t about compulsory insurance and registration is just that - sh!t. A stupid expensive solution for a problem that (in statistical terms) doesn't exist. A displacement activity for people who sit in their cars in traffic and get cross about it, and who are not quite loony enough to post on extremist anti-cyclist ranting sites.

In 2009 DoT recorded 271 accidents involving pedestrian and cyclist and c.19,000 involving pedestrian and car.

I went to the Rake in Borough Market recently. Ironic and non-ironic beards in harmony over fantastic beer. I'm not bothered about specifically 'craft' beer, just good beer, and it is noticeable that even big breweries are producing better stuff, and pubs are stocking a wider range. BTW does anybody know why the Draft House only has one bitter on draft? It's always seemed odd to me.

And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays then? If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30 that's 30 years of lost earning/ support not many people have that kind of spare cash. Surely wouldn't insurance do the job? Yes it would. As it would for all the other unlikely causes of death out there. For example, the number of fatal dog attacks (whilst low in absolute terms) consistently outstrips fatal accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. Compulsory third party insurance for every dog owner?

"Registration and insurance is a sensible step forward, and the arguments against them are pretty weak to non-existent at best... and a weak attempt at distraction at worst." I haven't actually seen you articulate the supposed benefits of registration and insurance yet, so please go ahead. When someone suggested that the time, effort and cost in setting this up would be better spent pursuing uninsured drivers, you seemed to regard that as somehow absurd, yet a comparable cost/benefit analysis is the most sensible approach, no? The Dep of Transport have access to more and better stats than most so it's not difficult - they know pretty much to the penny what the real cost of road accidents are, and they're very good at modelling what the likely effect of changes to rules or road layouts will be. That's why, for instance, urban 20mph zones have proliferated. Obviously, if you have no interest in benefiting the wider public but just have an irrational, deep-seated resentment of cyclists then your stance makes perfect sense.

Nose, ears and brows. Get yourself a trimmer and do it at home. It's not metrosexual, it's essential.

Fulham 1 Arsenal 1 Norwich 2 Reading 0 QPR 2 Stoke 1 Sunderland 1 Everton 1 Swansea 2 Southampton 0 West Brom 2 Newcastle 1 West Ham 2 Wigan 0 Tottenham 3 Man City 2 Liverpool 1 Chelsea 2 Man Utd 2 Aston Villa 1

"Is there any hope of us getting a home for our family anywhere in south east London?" Yes "We're even looking outside the catchment area of Charter school" You may need to look a bit further

I agree with H (shock). At the individual level a result can easily be dismissed as bollocks and irrelevant, but at the statistical the results are probably quite robust. The significance is not the label but what the label means in terms of predicting behaviour, especially when that behaviour is not easily predicted by straightforward economics.

So no real objection other than more road signs. Worth a go then.

What is the real objection to a 20mph limit for LL between Goose Green and the Plough? I mean other than the libertarian* nonsense, and 'it won't stop the nutters anyway' type arguments? That section of LL is mixed residential and retail with a lot of pedestrian traffic at one end and a fair amount at the other - a change to 20 mph is almost certainly going to have some impact on both the perceptions of safety and actual safety, and little effect on overall journey times. What's not to like? (I'm as keen a libertarian as almost anyone, but freedom to drive at 30 in a busy built up area is an accident of history, not a precious human right)

The net effect is a transfer of cash from one tax payer to another; without the tax break the money would still be in the public pot. Same difference, in this instance.

"in fact it seems that my own humble predictions about muddling through these common currency teething problems seem to be the only ones that are proving accurate. Where is the apocalypse relentlessly pursued by the isolationists? " comic gold

In an ideal world we would have universal benefits to reinforce the social contract, but we don't have that luxury. To be ruthless, we need to operate on the basis of what people do, not what they say. Wealthy pensioners will complain if you pull their free bus passes, but so what? Is it going to act as a realistic disincentive to people doing their best to save and provide for themselves in the future? Of course not. This is a single example but it applies generally. I would have more respect for Clegg if he'd told the 'ED mum' straight out that this is about handing out public money, and giving it to her is not justifiable or beneficial for the wider population.

"ady Delilah, it looks like she's ahead of you; 'It's a cultural thing. It's a general feeling that we are starting to get from the Government. People now feel they can say ?why should I pay for you to stay at home?" clearly you're buying the governments message & feel you can say that. :D" Saying something is a government message is not an excuse for not addressing it. This is the same point that was made (certainly by me) in the child benefit thread, and I'm happy to make it again here. Giving public money for childcare to families who do not need childcare in order to support themselves is a nonsense, and to call this policy discrimination against stay at home mums is worse than nonsense.