Mick Mac

Parents partly to blame ...No. If a shopkeeper looks away and a kid spots this and steals sweets is the shopkeeper partly to blame. Of course not. Poor parenting maybe but "to blame"....certainly not.

Please don't change your selections guys. Your first choices were sufficiently poor.

I agree with you Sue, SJ is being harsh ( or fatherly :) )

I seem to have had the trainer of a 80/1 runner up and got >400 points..... :) genius.

You are missing the point Sue. I meant, that if Madeline was "targeted", she could have been taken at some point during the holiday, not at some point that evening. I realise this is conjecture, but children who are taken are often targeted in advance. If this is the case it can then be a case of when rather than if.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong but wrong is a subjective term. I said it did not constitute neglect. It was rather stupid and they have paid a very high price. They felt it was safe and it turned out it wasn't. My personal view is that this child had been watched and could have been taken at some point or other. It wasn't necessarily an opportunist kidnap. To blame these parents for the crime of another is wrong.

Sue - Personally I feel sad for the McCann family. Yes they left their children asleep in what was supposed to be a safe environment, but I have known some parents who have done the same. I would not say it was neglect. They will carry the pain forever, but there is no accounting for the actions of a peodophile and to allocate part of the blame to the family is wrong. You can't be with your children 100% of the time. There will always be opportunities for people like this who target a particular child. You just have to protect your children as best you can - but mainly hope that you are not the unlucky ones like the McCanns.

Well done RD - many thanks. PS: what happended you in the fantasy horseracing? My 1 team seems to be ahead of all of your 3 teams... :)

I remember being present when we voted for the first Thursday of the month. But bring on July.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He @#$%& went and did it again though. What a > @#$%& wankstain! Indeed. Quite unbelievable.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I totally agree with you in general terms > MM, football isn't exactly the real world. > > At ?5 million odd a year top contracts are worth, > I wouldn't give a toss if the grandees of football > added the invention of perpetual motion in my > contract, let alone winning the treble, I'm taking > the role!! And then you get sacked and it might not damage your reputation immediately but a second one might. Targets are a means of quantifying what the expectations are of both sides and are should not be viewed as a bad thing necessarily.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every billionaire "achievable target" is winning > league and champions league > I don't remember referencing the discussion in terms of billionaires. Targets should be included in managers' contracts, like the real world tat most people live in, from high finance to the NHS. No manager should take on a role where the target is unrealistic. A contract reflects the negotiated position.

achievable targets...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The way City have dealt with the sacking is > horrible. Pure business speak about targets, no > understanding about sport and the fact that every > other team and manager has the same targets and > only one can win. I agree with City - I think achieveable targets shoud be included in footballing contracts. Otherwise they massivly underperform, and get paid massive compensation eg Eriksson's contract extension for England - there is little or no accountibility but there should be.

Surely whisky has to come into it somewhere along the line MM. I'll be off to Ireland playing golf. There is more than one way to have time away from the missus :)

Or an August evening. It's Ireland innit

Looks good EP. Very nice.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...let alone what he achieved at Aberdeen, which > was in some ways more impressive Sometimes quids you need to learn to think inside the box.

Ferguson inherited nothing but a pub team..Robson McGrath Whiteside etc.

Looks like Moyes is nailed on. Im amazed that as a quoted entity there was not an open recruitment, but there you go. Good luck to them.

Career in pictures - some footballing memories http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22444888

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > right man + right time + right money > He took over a once great club that was second bottom of Division One under Ron Atkinson. A huge task to turn things around.

Harder to get in to, easier to win.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Much as people will claim otherwise (particularly > Liverpool fans with Paisley), it's hard to argue > that SAF is the greatest manager ever because he > was still able to build new teams right to the > end. > > Not the nicest bloke by all accounts, but respect > where it's due Thats pretty much it. I guess in theory he didnt win enough European Cups but its been a more difficlt format thatn in the Paisley years, so I give the nod to Sir Alex.

The Southwold Arms. Not far.