KidKruger

Yeah I guess I know the logic, and there's no doubt it was genuine back agony for Cook, but I am dissapointed when a bloke who's been running a bar for 2 years get a call to take on the World Champion and lasts 90 seconds. He shouldn't have been in there and it's a disservice to the fans, regardless of what money gets made. I know nothing will necessarily change, but boxing fans deserve better. I read that Burns said something like "Once he felt my power he wanted out" !

Intimidation in the street and the fear experienced by people going about their own business is one of this country's travesties IMO. The slack societal attitude allows it to continue. The losers who get their kicks by ganging-up on folks are natural cowards and they need to know that it will be nipped in the bud, otherwise they just perpetuate and build-on that behaviour with ever-increasing aggression to innocent passers-by. If there's no law against hassling someone just for passing-by, then there should be. That jogger is a hero IMO, dealing with @ssholes and having the confidence to shove it back in their face. He gets the medal this week.

Kevin Mitchell mixed spells of boxing with spells of brawling to get the indefatiguable John Murray out of there in 8 rounds. I think this is a good win for Mitchell who perhaps should concentrate on getting local/European bouts for a while before challenging at the world level again. I really hope his alcohol etc related problems are behind him and he can continue to improve. Early in the fight it did look like Murray was going to continue walking through every shot from Mitchell, surely Murray's (anybody's) shelf-life is shortened by using the taking of punches (a la Hatton) as a tactic ? Marquez beat Ramos in an unconvincing R1, it did look like a feigned KO form Ramos, whether it was or not. This leaves Marquez having had no testing warm-up bout before he faces Pacquiao, for the third time, later this year. Perhaps he'll squeeze another in before the ? Ricky Burns had a R1 non-fight as Nicky Cook's back gave out a few seconds into the fight. Nicky cook hadn't fought for 2 years but was somehow entitled to challenge for the WBO strap he'd held for a few months about 2 years ago. How that was authorised escapes me ! Roll on Froch v Ward.

karter: "Is it legal to record stuff for evidence without letting all parties know you are doing so? Just out of interest.." Not entirely sure, for me, my main aim is to have a record of what was said and have something to refer to for personal use. I think to record and THEN share without knowledge / permission of those recorded is probably some kind of privacy offence. If I need to drag out an excerpt from a recording then I can, but it'd be a last resort and only to demonstrate what was said / settle any contention over detail of previous hearings or discussions beforehand. I say last resort because it's not something you want to wave around like some kind of threat, "watch out I've got all these recordings so be careful what you say".

I agree, even if the ship has sailed back to port it's still a legit target in a war.... It may sail back tomorrow.

323 apparently: Belgrano body count

She used to own one of the houses (then newly built) in the private gated development on the left as you drive West on South Circular, few yards before junction with College Rd. I think it's called Hambledon Place. I'm not convinced she actually spent much time living there.

I think it may be useful to not explicitly commit to anything / sign anything until you've done your research and spoken to unions/advisors. It'll serve you well to be as prepared as possible, write your questions down with plenty of space to fit the answers. Also you could take a small recording device switched on before you go in and wrapped in something like a tissue so sound gets through OK, or use the iPhone voice recording app (this is purely for referential use but also if something is later contested and you find you need evidence). In court I use an Edihrol device wrapped in a tissue. Never needed to use the evidence but useful for reference going forward, it's surprising what you think was said but actually wasn't (and vice versa).

On the other page for ED Gossip/Issues, Computedshorty makes the point about the CP link being less in demand because the reason the line was established, to serve the Crystal Palace, was deleted when the landmark burned down what seems like 20 years or so before, so it may have been a case of diminishing use, leading to eventual closure (and perhaps no / negligible campaign as a result ?).

One reason there may have been no successful campaign could be that there was an unsuccessful campaign. Are you saying that there was NO campaign at all and if not why not, or are you saying that although there was a campaign, why did it fail ?

needing a bit of the old rhino 'horn', eh cazzy ? You saucy thing.

Just ask neighbours. I blitzed my hedge recently and use up brown bins of neigbours both sides, just need to agree with them when you're doing it so you don't clash with their weekend of pruning.

Wow, so much to consider when you really get into the world of the 'shy'...

At the Goose Green school fair on Saturday the Coconut Shy was indeed 'shy' of coconuts. Basically the little bloke running it had no coconuts except the one you throw balls at. If you won (i.e knocked the coconut off it's perch) he said he'd 'run out' and that somebody is 'stocking up at Northcross Rd' and will be 'back soon'. Most people of course, didn't win, so were none the wiser that they would not have received their prize anyway. However, those that did win, were only being told at that point they'd have to 'come back later' if they want their coconut. One guy came 'back later' to be told 'youre too late mate, the guy has been and gone and you missed your chance'. I know it's all for a good cause but it's really not cool to strip people of cash in a sly way like this. You either play straight or don't play until you have the goods. The punters handed the cash over believing they had every chance of winning their prize, that's WHY they pay to play. The incentive IS the coconut prize. Nobody would have paid for the cahnce to win an IOU. It was being sponsored by a local business, who I'm sure don't run their show the same way. Though give stereotypes of that business sector (estate agency), you could construe parallels. Candidate for the stocks on Goose Green IMO, and a putrid tomato being bunged, bang on target, from me as a starter for 10 !!

So we have an indicator of where to apply the controls then, don't we. Who cares about the size of the animal that can cause the damage, I don't, the key thing is people's safety surely.

So the owner was automatically at fault today at the station then ?

Good heavens I didn't know about this. Bit of a sham for me, London is a grid-locked, congested city which is a bastad to cross at the best of times. Why pretend otherwise, we should be proud of our city, right ? Now it'll be impossible for millions of inhabitants because somebody's doing the 100 yard dash in Stratford. We pay for the Olympics, don't get a deal on tickets, and won't be able to use certain crossings and roads for weeks ? Good for London, the Olympics.

So the definition of danger is an act of parliament ? Not the place I generally look when trying to assess danger ! If I call an animal dangerous it's not because I think some advisor has listed that animal on an actof parliament.

I tend towards Jeremy's view on this, why anyone would want to own a pet which is capable of badly wounding a person, let alone killing someone, is beyond me. Also the fact that the law supports such ownership to me is illogical. I'm not anti-dog but I am anti-dangerous pets - where the pet is being exposed to innocent people who are not choosing to be maimed or killed. Other dangerous pets are controlled or not allowed. Same should apply to dangerous dogs. Don't go trying to say I'm wrong, it's my opinion and I fear that posturing over character this and personality that sort of gets away from the physical facts. Nobody wants to get eaten by a dog or any other animal.

gimme a break, it's early in the morning for bird calcs. Point is: 200,000 birds a day 'killed by cats' is BS !!

200,000 birds a day killed by cats in UK. 1,400,000 birds a week. 42 million birds a month. 504 million (half a billion) birds a year. Strange, I live in a neighbourhood frequented by cats and don't see even a tiny portion of the dead-bird mountain that's allegedly being created by cats. Rubbish original statistic IMO. No empirical evidence, just a figure conjured up in the research labs of Analville, TN. Anyway, think of the relief the worms are getting with 200,000 dead birds a day in UK. No-one thinks of the worms do they, just because they're not feathered and can't sing sweet songs. Biased OP, it's anti-cats, ignores plight of worms.

They'd be shing torches at the doors t omake a note of which house number they had measured near.

Steveo - Probably because of the mess it would cause and the hassles of having to explain to passers by and police etc, if we could just switch people off who p!ssed us off on the way to work and they just vanished leaving no mess or body to trip over, there'd be loads more murders.

Yes, there's one in the Castle. You used to be able to play on the tables down Foresters also, and the Uplands.

Most people are honest. The scewed impression that honest folk are a minority is probably a function of the negative headlines / threads about robbings etc. Most of the people you pass on the street don't mug you, but they're not lauded for it, so the baddies get all the attention.