Alan Medic

The Batcave?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are still unbeaten domestically aren't they? > I'm seem to remember RD saying what the odds were > of that happening some months ago. They were quite > attractive if I remember correctly. > Looked it up. On Feb.20 it was 7/2 to be unbeaten in the league and win the cup.

They are still unbeaten domestically aren't they? I'm seem to remember RD saying what the odds were of that happening some months ago. They were quite attractive if I remember correctly. PS What happened in 1966?

Louisa Wrote: > a) what makes you think the dog wouldn't follow? > If this person is so horrified that a seemingly > un-threatening animal is being annoying, why not > hush the animal in a gentle and friendly way back > to its owner and laugh it off. > b) it doesn't have to be a horrible confrontation, > it could be a friendly encounter. She could loudly > make the dog walker/owner actually realise that > it's not OK to let this happen. > c) you, like others, assume confrontation has to > be a 'bad ' thing. It doesn't at all. > d) and on what basis do you think it won't? But > simply choosing to ignore, and not actively > seeking a solution, the same will happen again, > will it not? > > Now, why don't some of you on here, particularly > those who come in screaming me and others down for > "attacking" the OP, actually contribute to the > situation by offering some handy advice for future > situations like this. Some people just like to > shit stir on here. Others think doing nothing is > better than resolution. > > Louisa. Confrontation does not equal encounter. Confrontation is a bad thing.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the dog was trying to take food? It wasn't > showing aggression or frightening people? Wouldn't > it have been a good idea to calmly call the dog > away, and take it back to the owner/dog walker and > then confront said individual there and then? I > don't understand why people find it so difficult > to confront situations as and when they happen. I > appreciate it isn't always possible, but it > certainly helps to avoid future problems from the > same person. > > Louisa. a)What makes you think the dog would follow a stranger? b)What makes you think confronting the person will lead to a solution? c)What makes you think it should be normal for everyone to be confrontational? d)On what basis do you conclude confronting this person will make things better and not worse in the future?

Mick Mac Wrote: > Apologies, but I had to get that in before > midnight. It's a shame no-one else posted in > support of this remarkable event. > It was nice to see BBC put the Glasgow 67 > documentary on the main channel last night. Thanks > Alan Medic for highlighting. > Forever 67. I hadn't seen that particular documentary before and would highly recommend it. It has a charm about it. It can still be seen on the BBC i player. On a different note I'd be curious to know what Spurs fans here think they were missing that Chelsea had to win the league? Good to see Jose at least happy for once. It amazing that one game defined how good or bad the season was for him & United. If they lost it would have been considered not good enough, but winning it means it was a great season. I seem to remember him saying winning the Charity Shield was LVG's and not his trophy. Seems like he's taken it back now though. Why can't the FA Cup Final kick off at 3pm? It used to be the highlight of the year for me when there was hardly ever any football on TV. Too much football just dilutes what used to be a pleasure.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was running last night and a cyclist kept coming > down the pavement towards me - I matched his > course directly and said politely but firmly 'this > is a pavement, ride on the road'. That's what I feel like saying to joggers on the pavement. Find somewhere else to run. Some of them seem to think us pedestrians should move out of the way when they approach. By definition a pavement is for pedestrians and a pedestrian is someone who walks, not runs.

@ Mick Mac. In case you don't know there's a documentary on the Lisbon Lions tomorrow BBC1 11.15.

https://www.ft.com/content/e021c208-3ede-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2 Lets see if this works......... ..........it didn't. You can read the article though. Just can't post a link to it.

Congratulations RD and thanks for organising it.

I don't expect the remain voters to vote for the Lib Dems. In this constituency I expect I'll vote for Labour. This isn't just any old GE. What happens will affect the country for years to come. In my opinion, in a bad way. I'm clutching at straws that the country won't commit suicide.

If this election is about Brexit then there isn't much difference between the Conservative and Labour approach to it. It appears some people think the UK can remain in the Single Market and curb immigration. That's not possible. After that it's about different ways of arranging the furniture that's left in the sitting room. Only the LibDems have offered a 2nd referendum on the Brexit deal. Whoever the 48% are should really be voting for them. But as stated here,they don't seem to be making any impact in the campaign so far. I hope that changes.

You haven't worked as an undertaker Red, have you?

Ajax fielded the youngest ever side in the Dutch league at the week-end. They still had the title to play for. Average age 20 years 139 days. That's pretty incredible in any day or age.

One thing it certainly isn't is nessasary (sic).

Jah has moved up into 2nd....#stillpossible

I remember in the mid 80's going to see United play at Stamford Bridge. We were in a Chelsea occupied stand. A good reason to keep quiet became doubly so when Frank Stapleton approached the touchline underneath us to take a throw. Not far from us were a few guys whose origins/politics became clear when they shouted at Stapleton, *uck off you Fenian *astard.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ......or when the Police station was a house on > the corner of Upland Road/Crystal Palace Road. I thought that house for undercover police. Are you saying it was a Police station before that?

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting article in the financial press this > week which illustrates the myth of inward > investment. Summary of it as follows:- > > These details apply to Thames Water which is > entirely owned by off-shore companies > > Quote............... > > ?1.16bn Dividends paid to shareholders from 2006 > to 2015 > 0 Corporation tax paid by Thames Water from 2011 > to 2015 > ?10.2bn Borrowings by March 2016. > ?260m pensions deficit by March 2016 (Shades of > BHS ??) > > > Since December 2006 Thames Water has been owned by > a consortium of institutional investors, including > funds from China and Abu Dhabi. It was managed by > Macquarie Capital Funds (MCF), dubbed by > Australian newspapers the ?vampire kangaroo? for > its ruthless focus on profits and tax > minimisation. MCF sold its final stake in March > 2017 to Kuwaiti and Canadian investors. > > Thames Water paid ?1.16bn in dividends between > 2006 and 2015 - a return that equates to about > half of the ?2.3bn of equity paid to buy Thames > Water by the Australian Macquarie Capital Funds in > 2006-07. It paid NO TAX during the last 6 years. > Unquote > > This surely is a scandal of major proportions. If no tax was paid in the last 6 years then no dividends were either. Those can be paid when a company is making a profit. What is the myth of inward investment? Why would the figures be any different if the company was UK owned?

Speaking of providing content, were any of you contacted by a Kiwi last year doing a thesis based on this forum?

Otta Wrote: > You were weary of girls in red jumpers as a > teenager. Is that really weary or do you mean wary? Two different thoughts come to mind.

Villager Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > To use a football analogy, I hope that Teresa > May > > is to elections as BFS was to England > management. > > I will vote for anyone with the best chance of > > stopping another Conservative government. I > > seriously hope the opposition do not continue > to > > rule out a coalition, if that's what it takes. > > > BFS? > > WIFS is BFS? WIFS?

To use a football analogy, I hope that Teresa May is to elections as BFS was to England management. I will vote for anyone with the best chance of stopping another Conservative government. I seriously hope the opposition do not continue to rule out a coalition, if that's what it takes.

Andrew Marr asked TM yesterday if she thought gay sex was a sin. She said no as I expected her to. Right we can all vote for her now as 'ol Tim just found it really difficult to say it wasn't...... These bloody questions irritate me. First of all everyone takes for granted a sin is a bad thing but no one says what it actually is. Go on someone, define it. Oh ok, sins are acts which don't please God. You'll probably go to Hell if you commit enough of them or at least have a pit-stop in Purgatory. Oh right. So who is God and what are these places called Hell and Purgatory? But no. TM won't be asked anything like this. She may well believe that God is a man with grey hair and a long beard who sits on a throne in a place called Heaven. His son could perform miracles. His son's Father was called Joseph even though he (Joseph) wasn't God. His mother was a virgin. It all makes sense now. One last question PM. Is nose picking a sin? No, it isn't. Why not?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It has nothing to do with the actual numbers or > the policy, it's that she messed up something so > basic live on the radio. Does it really matter in the greater scheme of things? May said 9 times there wouldn't be a snap election. > > With this and John McDonnell being photographed > yesterday giving a speech under the Hammer & > Sickle and Ba'athist flag, any advances Labour had > made in the last two weeks will now likely have > been completely undone.- Jeez. Do you really think that's important? If so why?