ruffers

Can I make us smile again?

evelknievel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > If the coloured squares idea has merit for me, > it's as a temporary, changeable, and ultimately > reversible installation. That way you could do > away with it altogether, or you could change it > from time to time to reflect specific events or > simply for variety. > Agree with this, and it sounds like it might be the case as the submissions talk about vinyls as opposed to paint.

Reason Gallas got away with it, for anyone else that's interested, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/21/william-gallas-arsenal-escapes-action . "The referee, Alan Wiley, did not award a free-kick and Coyle confronted him at ?full-time to ask why. The manager reported that "it's fair to say that what he [Wiley] said was that he never saw it". That would have left Gallas open to retrospective action from the Football Association but it has emerged that Wiley informed the governing body he did view the incident and merely saw two players coming together, having stretched for the ball. As such, the FA has no scope to ?investigate further." And I never played for anyone beyond school. 4 schools, started on left wing at each, covered in goal at each when keeper didn't show/got injured, ended up in goal at all 4.

Scholes is irrelevant as to whether Gallas should get a ban or not. Bans have never been connected to how long a player is out injured so can't see the relevance of that either. Doesn't change the fact that if rules are followed the FA should be looking at the "x-rated" tackle retrospectively, and I still can't see how they've come to the conclusion not to when as far as I understand the ref has said on more than one occasion he didn't see it.

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They can taunt each other as much as they like, G. > Neville has achieved more in the English league > than Tevez ever will. Ruffers, are you a Gooner? Not sure how you came to that conclusion, City fan here. CTID.

Tevez is a legend already. Dear Jimmy Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please can you fix it for me so Taggart plays Gary Chuckle on Wednesday? thanks in advance ruffers

*Anna* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So come on, I know youre all itching to know as > well...why was the helicopter flying over se22 for > a good 20mins or so between 8.15pm and 8.35pm ish. I think they were looking for a missing apostrophe. ;-)

Atila Reincarnate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the FA will do > nothing about the Gallas tackle. It shows they are > consistent if nothing else. They did sod all about > the leg breaker on Eduardo, so they've shown some > sort of consistency. It's a different situation, completely. The ref saw the Eduardo tackle and sent the guy off, action was taken therefore the FA can't act retrospectively. Gallas foul the referee didn't see it, and the rule is if that's the case then the FA can act. This is the bit I don't get. So there's no consistency - in one case the rules were followed, the other not.

Just heard the FA have said they'll not be doing anything about it. I can't understand that.

Or let's have a sense of perspective and not jump up and down a week after the frosts and say "I want my road doing now now NOW!". I'm prepared to believe the council has a programme to repair the potholes which have opened on almost every road in the last few weeks and they're getting on with it. I'm also pretty confident that this painting of a wall will have absolutely zero effect on that programme.

It was clearly put out to some kind of process, hence the entry form asking for designs (although it does look a bit more like a school project). The councillor is damned if he does and doesn't isn't he? Let's people know what's happening, people moan. If he doesn't, people would moan.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Piffle. > > The most effective deterrent is to have the > graffiti removed as soon as possible. Within 24 > hours. The graffiti 'artists' get totally peed-off > it their work is swiftly obliterated. Their time, > effort and investment have been totally wasted if > it's no longer there for them and their mates to > marvel at. That?s when they give up. > > To reduce the cost to the council, the ones to > remove it should be those who have been sentenced > to community service. > > Fixing the pot holes, as suggested, is much > better use of our money. I suggest James you have > a look at Matham Grove and other streets off LL. > The potholes there are developing fast and there's > an urgent need to do something. > > > It appears that some councillors have failed to > appreciate the need to maintain existing > infrastructure - like the roads - hence the road > surfaces became vulnerable to frost damage which > leads on to pot holes. Instead you want to splash > tax money on a totally needless arty farty > project that isn?t even art. > > The sooner you are off the council the better. And the within 24 hours is the policy, so what's the problem? To my understanding it's also been shown that a decorated wall is much less of a target than a blank one. Regarding potholes they'll get done sooner or later, I'm not losing any sleep over them. Natural traffic calming, drive slower.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a fantastic british response to a > particularly ugly wall and suggestions to tart it > up > > Whilst I like the idea of covering it and enjoyed > the joke re: using excel, is it THAT hard for > people to just live a little? It's possible to > travel around this world and see everything from > vibrant murals to minimalist designs (a la this > one) but as soon as you come back to England, > urban living is just one big "meh" because people > would rather say no and cry "liberal policies"! (I > mean for F*** sake!!!) > > I don't LOVE any of the designs and I'm no good > myself at design, but I sure would prefer any of > them to what's there at the moment What he said. I quite like the first one as it goes. Also, given the way the wall is, I reckon something good could be done with quite directional lighting and shadows for the night time.

Feels faster so far, good stuff.

Gallas should get a ban for that, shocking challenge.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JBARBER Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Woah. > > Every year the council spends money removing > > graffiti from this wall. > > xxxxxxxx > > Really? I pass it virtually every day as I live > just off North Cross Road. Don't mean to > disbelieve you but I don't recall ever having seen > any graffiti on it? Efficient aren't they?

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where does the poisoned food figure in this? Has > someone's dog been made ill or died? Maybe Mr. > Barber the Councillor needs to know? Is this > woman a new person in the park? Can she be given > an ASBO or whatever passes for banning these days? Best give her an ASBO, just in case I reckon. Either that or take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Review of yesterday's telly from the Guardian which seemed relevant - is this programme filmed round here?! "Presumably, when the police allow the cameras in to follow them around, they do so because they think it makes them look good. I'm not always so sure. In Send in The Dogs (ITV1), they are harassing innocent commuters returning home after a hard day's work. A spaniel called Woody indicates that he thinks one man has drugs on him. The man is apprehended and given a body search. Understandably, he's pretty cross about it; it must be a humiliating experience, especially in front of all the people he travels home with every day, and he protests vociferously. So they bundle him into a backroom and carry on in there. Eventually, after finding nothing on him, they have to let him go. He's still angry, though. Of course he is, he's an innocent man and he's been treated like a criminal, then given no apology. He says he's going to kick Woody the spaniel's face. He clearly isn't, it's an idle threat and he's walking away, but it's all the police need, and they jump on him again and arrest him this time. His bad day gets even worse. Interestingly, the four uniformed officers who make the arrest all have their faces fuzzed out. Might that be because they're not too proud of what they're doing, after all? As for Woody, he's a disgrace. Cute, with nice pink freckles on his nose, but clearly not up to the job. Perhaps he should be given indefinite sick leave before he causes any more problems." http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/jan/20/how-earth-made-us

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good first half - but who was Tevez telling to > shut up after he scored? Was it Mark Lawrenson up > in the commentary box for continually saying it > was so easy for United... Think it was Gary Chuckle..

Surely that is rational rage?

Every time Mourinho sees Guardiola looking cool on the touchline a little bit of him dies inside.

The blurring of brand logos on American TV shows.

Key time in my experience is about 8.05 - 8.10. Before that = OK. After that = dear oh dear.

Unbelievable tekkers.

City were just very, very poor. Big mistake from Mancini was to replace injured Santa Cruz with Robinho and not Benjani after what, ten minutes. No focus and the whole team's heads dropped. Having said that he then took Robinho off, not a happy bunny. Anyone want a shop soiled show pony? edit> should have said Everton were excellent from the off, all over City. Massive missed opportunity for City with Spurs and Liverpool results, play like that against the RAGS on Tuesday, kids or not, and we'll get hammered.