DJKillaQueen

HA HA..have a plan for her to have 'a day in the life of a ......linesman' experience!

Hmmm Carribean cookbook written by two Australians - they obviously sailed in the wrong direction and mistook India for the Carribean ;-)

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > with Milfwall there'd have been less > pressure. Thing is many woman don't see the funny side of Milfwall lol. There are a couple of local 7 a side ladies teams (league) and for fun at the end of the summer I might just organise a friendly and make it an EDF event. And already there are a couple of ladies that have come along, never having played before that are naturals, there are a couple of others that will be very good and have natural football brains. I have every confidence that in time we'll be able to put on a good show!

Yep that's what I mean. Look at post no.2 Narnia - it clearly says that the winner would be decided by the squad from all the suggestions put forward by everyone on this thread. So no mystery, just straightforward vote for the name you like best.

LOL those are very good points. There's no doubt that a few people at the top are overpaid and care very little beyond what they personally can get out of it. But I totally agree that the answers have to as practical as they are moral and everything else.

Those who voted picked from the list of all entries the one they liked best. Some entries got no votes. The name with the most votes won. The only people eligible to vote were those who are on the kickabout player list - because it's their team.

Too funny...

The following names received the following votes; Dulwich Ophelias 1 DLKQs - Dulwich Ladies' Killer Queens 3 The Boudicas 1 The Dulwich Dames 2 EDF Killer Queens 1 The Dulwich Dolly Dribblers 2 Milfwall 1 Dulwich Dribblers 1 The New Dulwich Dolls 2 Dulwich Dynamites 4 The Dulwich Old Girls 1 All the other names socred nil points.

Milfwall got one vote.....that player hasn't been to a kickabout yet.......preparing the stocks as we speak!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I'm just a regular guy who > likes to look at evidence before coming to > conclusions. And tries to avoid ad hominem > arguments wherever possible. And quite rightly too. False arguements do nobody any good. I do think that things are linked, such as poverty, low wages, unemployment, benefits, housing and the noticeable lack of job creation in the private sector and it all points to some very fundamental things going very wrong in our economy (be the reasons, cultural, educational or whatever). And it's been going on for a long time. Many people would cite Thatcherism as the starting point of the decline but the decline started long before with the decline of manufacturing and other changing aspects of society (for example higher education of women and a greater demand for jobs and so on). I think where governemnts have failed is to make sure the population is suitably skilled for the changes as they come (no investment). We've accumulated lost generations of unemployed as a result. We are historically poor at planning for the future as a nation and we don't invest enough in business either. Thatcherism definitely was the precursor to the modern widening gap between rich and poor but it's a gap that (for all their efforts) has also continued to grow under Labour. I think a good start for any government would be to start taking a long view term of things and planning policy around that. There are too many psuedo economists and lawyers in politics and not enough people who really understand how to start to build a fairer, more productive and better rewarded, balanced and cohesive society.

Hey maybe Easyjet would sponser a kit lol..... I can see the commercial now..... 'EDF Dynamites, sponsored by Easyjet, for teams going places..........' PMSL...

And the winner is....... Dulwich Dynamites - ta-dah! (although we will ammend it to EDF Dynamites lol) Well done Mamma Mia - have pm'd you to get your prize to you. *breathes a sigh of relief it wasn't Milfwall*

lol....the WI are half my team! And we only shoot bad refs.

Was thinking potential WC finalists Holland lol.

Ultimately it's the responsibility of the ref and his linesmen to spot these things....and if they can't, use video technology that can. Also when you are a player you have less than a split moment to decide what you do. Players tend to develop patterns that they do without thinking, for example one player will always try and bypass a half tackle whereas another will always go down. You just don't have the time to think - do I bypass or do I go down? It's the same with hand balls mostly too. Yes the Uraguay player deliberately hand balled on the goal line but in his mind it was an instant reaction to his head saying 'goal coming' - a nano second thing.....it's not always the heinous crime that we think. If anything, his celebration of the missed penalty was the unsportmanlike behaviour.

My knees are clacking just fine. Have pimped up my zimmer in the team colours!

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember looking at this a while ago: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_ > Kingdom#Taxable_Income > Thank you for that very useful link Brendan...that completely backs up what all the other reports and offices for statistcs are saying. There's also something called the Labour Force Survey and that surveys wages and the Labour market every few months to keep infomation up to date should Dave want to continue to question just how many people are on less than average to low incomes. Similarly the DWP publish spreadsheets of benefits data regularly too including area by area data.

Brenden we've been here with Dave before....he refuses to acknowledge there's any problem with the housing market if I recall earlier on the thread and I can't be bothered going through it all with him again. We'll get nowhere. And am I right in thinking Dave, you are a buy-to-let investor? I might be wrong but if I recall rightly that you are then of course you are never going to accept any kind of regulation on the return from your investment. It stands to reason. However the overall issue here is costing the welfare bill far too much to justfiy the continued subsidisation of wages and private landlords mortgages. Property investors can still make money on their investments but it just can't double in a decade like it has previously.

Dave I did post a link above.....33% of workers do not earn mean average income...look up to the first link in my posts above. You know as well as I do the 'mean' figures are only an average. When you break down the labour force and see what percentage of workers are earing in which wage brackets the picture looks very different. There are lots of bodies that have researched the labour market in the uk and they all report the same thind, be it the DWP, office of national stats, and so on. My cousin is typical. In fact I'd say 33% or workers earning leass than ?7 an hour is extremely typical.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Musing out loud: Could HB be actually raising the > average rent, thus clawing more people into > needing it and creating a never ending cycle? > Rents, almost by definition, can only be at a > level where people can pay them. Does HB give > that ability an artificial boost? > > Would therefore lowering/capping HB actually cause > a drop in rents (causing, admittedly a few > landlords to go bust)? It's a very good question? It would need to be capped much further to have that kind of impact and I suspect the outcome would be back to whole families renting a single room rather than sending Landlords bust (so currently grey areas of legislation on overcrowding would need to be overhualed too). In some European countries rents are capped by the local authority (and any increases also decided by the LA)...so if you are a landlord buying a property they will only pay for it what they can get in rent. The result is that property becomes a long term investment and there are no shortage of rentable properties either. I think that is probably the way to go on this. Controlling rentable values should help in some part to slow the market. At present we have fair rent committees. But they are only useful in settling rent disputes and advising local benefits agencies on the average rent for properties in any particular area, who then use that info to decide what is the maximum HB they will pay - and yes that means that there was already some form of capping in place on HB before the coalitions announcement. In reality we currently have a system where the welfare system is at the mercy of the free market. We need to changed that in some way, but not so drastically the we end up with the opposite. It's going to require some careful balancing, but sonmeone in power needs to at least have the balls to start addressing it.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most of us realise that the cost of > housing vs the average income is a problem. Exactly but why are none of the main political parties addressing this? They seem determined to let the private housing market go on as it has done. It just leaves me speechless. I suspect some of it has to do with the looming pensions crisis and because for some, property investment IS their pension (have no idea what the figures on that are though). On jobs and wages we have another problem. We are essentially subsidisng jobs. Of course it's better to do that then have even higher unemployment but again given that we know that getting the umemployment figures down requires investment not only in the unemployed themselves but also in job creation, it's hard to see how any real savings are going to be made over the next five years in welfare. If anything the bill will have to rise. And I think Duncan Smith knows that, but he also knows that he's going to have a fight on his hands with the treasury. He's going to have to do better than suggesting people move. In Sheffield for example, there are 8 unemployed for every available vacancy (unemployment is around 10k which makes the coalitions decision to drop the grant at Sheffield forge that would have created 3000 jobs mystifying). Interestigly in 2000 unemployment stood at 15K but the overall poulation of sheffield since then has contracted by 320K so people do already move (including the unemployed). Figures sourced from Here One other point worth making too is that it's widely accepted that the majority of the 1.3 million jobs created under labour were public sector jobs and no surprise many of them will go as they are the easiest thing to cut. Cameron's plan for recovery is that the private sector will magically create the new jobs needed. If under 13 years of economic boom the private sector didn't create sunstantial numbers of jobs how on earth is that going to happen in a period of economic low and recession? It's so niaive.

hmmm will there be funding for small sunday league teams to acquire said rifle and bullets? Against Germany I would have given the bullet to the entire back four - with Terry first.

I was going to write something but stopped myself before I confused you even more. It was along the lines of sometimes it pays to be off side but I'll leave that for footy practise. Just for you LM I will devise a footy drill to get this accross to you for once and for all :)

The point is that low wages mean tax payers have to give HB to a third of the workforce...what is so difficult to understand about that? I do not want my taxes paying the mortgages of landlords. A working person should be able to find a rent they can afford to pay in full. A third of them can't. Plenty of info on low pay (being less than ?7 per hour) and the numbers involved Here Good overall article Here Just a case example here, my cousin works full time for ?13000 a year (in the public sector). She has three children and no husband. Her rent (and this is in a working class area of Liverpool) for a 3 bedroomed property is ?450 per month and that's the bottom end but you'll get something ok for that. After tax and deductions she is left with around ?750 a month (around ?180 a week). She can not makes ends meet without the housing benefit and child tax credits she gets. She is very typical of many people in work and recieving Housing Benefit. There is a very clear debate to be had I think about that. The article above touches on the point that some employers can get away with low wages because they know that benefits will cover the shortfalls, but we all want cheap food and goods and that means low wages. On property, the only people that don't see anything wrong with any of this are those doing very nicely renting out properties. I don't pretend to have all the answers, part of the problem is that we don't want to throw those invested in it into negative equity and financial ruin (I would suggest outlawing Part Buy Part Rent as a starting point). But at the same time, long term we have to find some way of slowing the market so that salaries at the lower end can begin to catch up. That is the only real way to cut the HB bill.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The country faces a massive budget deficit, one of > the largest in Europe - ?1 in every ?4 that the > Government spends has to be borrowed. Without > action we would be rapidly approaching debt levels > you'd expect from being in a full scale world war. And are the low waged and unemployed to blame for that? No...so why are the most vulnrable being verbally attacked so viciously by the government and pushed into further poverty to pay for it? And unlike a full scale war we still have an infrastructure to recover with so it's a poor comparison. > > That meant some incredibly tough decisions in the > Budget. But if our Lib Dem MPs lacked the courage > to deal with the crisis in public finances, we'd > be letting people down. Not just the people who > voted Liberal Democrat, but the whole country. > You could have done that as an independent party and forced cross parliamently consensus on all matters, which is after all what the electorate voted for. Your voters did not vote for you to side with the with the conservatives...esp seeing as you came THIRD. You've effectively shut out the party that more people voted for than yourselves. You havent earned the right to govern in any form. > The Budget also illustrates the opportunity we > have. It includes important Liberal Democrat > polices that wouldn't be there if it weren't for > us. > Yes but a majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote for Liberal Democrat policies and you can't argue with that (and to justify that with the economic crisis is like saying the electorate don't matter). Granted the raising of the tax threashold for the poorest is down to you guys but where where you when it came to raising VAT? > The Budget raises the tax-free allowance on income > tax by ?1000, ending income tax altogether for > 880,000 low earners - an important first step > towards our election pledge of ?10,000 tax-free > allowance. It raises Capital Gains Tax from 18% to > 28% for higher rate taxpayers so that the > wealthier pay their share. There is now a > 'triple-lock' to protect pensioners. In future, > state pensions will rise by the rate of increase > in earning, or by inflation, or by 2.5% - > whichever is higher. > > There will also be a levy on the banks, to ensure > that they contribute to restoring the nation's > finances. But what are you going to do about the ridiculous gap between wages and property? What are you going to do to reverse the situation where 33% of the workforce need some form of top up benefit? Tax payers should not have to be paying rent (and therefore landlords mortgages) for so many working people. It's a scandal and tha major reason why the HB bill is so high. > > These are all Liberal Democrat policies put into > action now - in the budget legislation. They just > wouldn't have happened if the Conservatives were > governing alone. > And the conservatives wouldn't be governing at all if you had stayed seperate. They would have been forced into a far more libreral consensus (as a minority government) had all three parties had to work together. > Labour spin-doctors are taking every opportunity > to attack us. And Cameron and Clegg have their own spin...that's politics - have you already forgotten your days in opposition? All parties are as bad as each other in that respect and you make the mistake of thinking the public can't see that. But they won't have any credibility > until they start talking about how they would deal > with the problems they've left for Britain and why > they let Britain get into this pickle despite Lib > Dem warnings years in advance. Well the crisis would have come what ever the government. Do you really think a Conservative government or yourselves would somehow have reined in the banks and housing market to prevent such a crisis?. Please don't insult our intelligence. Labour did talk about how they would deal with the problems. They were going to hold off on cuts for a year and then would have made cuts but not necessrily in the same areas or way as the coalition. Who can say which route would have worked best. All I know is that when you cut so drastically and don't invest in jobs and people you shut down an economy. That is what a lot of people are afraid of (where was the sense in the decision on the grant to Sheffield forge for example?) > We are going to deliver on political reform, civil > liberties, and the environment. Really? your electoral reform aspirations looked doomed to fail! We will continue > to be a strong voice for a fairer Britain, > throughout the life of this government. We will > continue to be a thriving organisation that keeps > campaigning, develops new ideas and policies and > promotes Liberal Democrat values further. That I don't doubt and I know that most Lib Dem MPs do work very hard. I just think you are in deanial as to the level of influence you can have within the coalition (we can already see signs of that) and it is the view of many that that is going to cost you votes next time round.