Chippy Minton

Indeed, a so-called "middle-market tabloid" which has a massive reach - its website is the most read newspaper site in the world!

The Mail is a tabloid.

He was a great player, but that memory only exists for those of us over a certain age. When I was a kid growing up, I loved watching him, but I just thought Bob Wilson was the bloke that presented Football Focus and Emlyn Hughes was a captain on Question of Sport. Even Greavesie was the bloke that made the Saint piss himself every Saturday afternoon. There will be a generation now that don't remember Lineker and Hansen et al as players and eventually there will be another generation that don't remember Shearer his his peers.

They haven't ratified it yet, but they haven't come out to support it either. Hardly a ringing endoresment. And now that British Medical Journal, Health Service Journal and Nursing Times have jointly warned of the flaws in the Bill describing it as "bloated and opaque" and "an unholy mess" I don't think the arguement that its a "bunch of trades unions arguing to perpetuate the existing flawed model" stacks up either. Even the Daily Mail ran a story last week about the "poorly thought-through NHS reforms" and today's Times runs an editorial about the "botched NHS reforms" that "could destroy the Tories." It will be interesting to see if Alan Milburn becomes the man to rescue this Bill!

MM, As I've already pointed out, I don't think these organisations are trying to perpetuate a flawed model. They recognise the need for the NHS to modernise. The graphic shows the opposition to the Bill so your statement that the RCGP is the only Royal College to come out against the Bill is wrong. The RCGP has come out and said they want the Bill scrapped, but only two weeks ago the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges - representing 21 royal medical colleges - drafted a statement that said it had ?significant concerns? and could not support the Bill in its current form. Although not released to the media, it stated ?unless the proposals are modified, the Academy believes the Bill may widen rather than lessen health inequalities and that unnecessary competition will undermine the provision of high- quality integrated care to patients." I think this demonstrates the Royal Colleges' opposition. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "noting the crowd that makes up the opposition tends to make me support the Bill." It's a hell of a mixed crowd - these organisations represent everyone from Doctors and GPs to hospital porters and maintenance workers. I assume you mean you want to cut your nose off to spite your face?

Completely agree - often we see the far right actually opposing/supporting and generally agreeing with the same thing as the loony trots. It may not be for the same reasons, and it may not even be a conscious thing to them, but it happens a lot.

The lobby of Parliament has now also been confirmed for 7 March.

London Bridge looks like it's going to be one of the worst stations affected. You can also check each station individually here

Here's an interesting graphic from the NHS Support Foundation that shows the professional opposition to the Bill. http://www.nhscampaign.org/uploads/images/bill_opposition.png

I've just had the Lib Dem's survey about the long term vision for the site come through the door. Possibilities include a medical centre, retirement village, school, housing and community facilities. If you don't get it, or if you miss the hardcopy survey, you can complete it online here: http://svy.mk/zZ1DX7

I still don't get why the case has been pushed back until July. The QPR v Chelsea game was in October. Surely a case like this doesn't normally take nine months to get to court?

Easily England's most consistent the last 18 months or so, but still the wrong side of 30. Perhaps he's the answer for the Euros and then the new manager gets to appoint his new captain.

The crappy new look BBC site is now reporting Terry is going to lose the England captaincy. Rio's probably a bit past it now. Lampard's also past his best. Gerrard seems to be hampered more and more by injury. I don't think it is right for Rooney. Time for the next generation? Step forward Phil Jones?

James - the Guardian's report states the school has accepted the recommend, but also it has taken legal advice and is in the process of challenging a number of the assertions. Can you shine anymore light on what this does/might mean?

John Terry's court case has now been delayed until after the Euros. Why? Either he said it or he didn't. Not good for all concerned to have this dragging out for another five months.

I only have good things to say about this place. Ours went there a few years ago and loved it. Teachers/staff were all great and had fantastic relationships with the kids. The learn through play method was great preparation for school as well. I think they tried to expand by buying and converting the place next door, but this failed because of planning problems so it's clearly very popular.

Quite right Huguenot, let's back back on topic and ignore your personal attacks and forget about the irony of you telling someone to get a life. Should others get over themselves? No - they don't have a massively inflated opinion of themselves.

My apologies - you called what I'd written, rather than me, that. Fine. Who'da thunk it though - Huguenot suddenly gets a selective memory.

Huguenot - I'm aware you don't like my politics, especially with regard to industrial relations. That's fine. Many don't! I'm also aware you like to goad, bait and troll here, which I think most people can see through, most of the time. I never realised you were so sensitive though! Complaining about a personal attack! Come on...people in glass houses! The very first time you and I engaged on this forum was on thread where you ended up calling me "enfeebled and snot-nosed" and that I should "get a life" http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?27,669569,671405#msg-671405 (the latter of these personnal attacks I find to be one of the most ironic things you've ever written on this forum). And to top it all off, you say if you launched a personnal attack you'd "probably do it better" which kinda proves my point that you need to get over yourself in the first place!

Huguenot - you really need to get over yourself. These were all reasons given by the Honours Forfeiture Committee for the decision and this page gives some reasons where someone maybe be judged to have brought the system into disrepute http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/TheUKhonourssystem/DG_181375

How about overseeing an organisation that required the government to pump in ?20bn to not only save his business, but also prevent the collapse in confidence in the entire banking system? How about because he oversaw a company played a key role in the financial crisis of and helped trigger the worst recession in the UK since the second world war which imposed huge direct costs on British taxpayers and businesses? How about because he brought the honours system into disrepute?

Of course there are market forces, it's just tube drivers have the backing of strong unions (which you seem to resent). If there weren't market forces, why wouldn't the RMT/ASLEF "hold them to ransom" for even more and say we won't do it for ?45K, we want ?46K or ?50K or ?55K etc etc? "Two options" - or the third way - get your company unionised. "If I were to go on strike" - you can't. You're not in a union, so if you did "strike" you'd probably be fired instantly for gross misconduct. "Managed out the company" - that's constructive dismissal. You should def join a union ;-) As for "the general public cannot apply to be a tube driver" that isn't strictly true because if it was, it would be illegal. Yes, it's true that currently you have to work for LU to apply, however this policy is no different to thousands of other companies that recruit and fill their positions through internal processes.

Mrs Minton is my line manager...and my finance manager...and my entertainments manager. ;-)

boosbosss - you are wrong. That is not how industrial relations work i.e. ASLEF has agreed a deal for tube drivers. They negotiated the deal on behalf of their tube driver members, but it will not be exclusive to ASLEF members. All tube drivers will get this deal regardless of whether they are in ASLEF, RMT or not even in a union. There is no way LU know which of their employees are members of ASLEF, which are members of the RMT or which of them aren't in a union so they will give the payment to all of them. Once again, this dispute is nothing to do with tube drivers!!!!!! (I have now saved this phrase as a keyboard shortcut ;-)). Loz - I can't quite work out whether you do really think drivers just push buttons and make announcements or whether it's some sort assuming Alan B'stard type goading that Huguenot seems to find so funny. Anyway, as people on this forum are so fond of pointing out, people are paid the market rate for the skills that they bring to the job. There will always be someone that will do a job for less money than the person that is actually doing the job. You complain about how much tube drivers are paid, but how much are you paid? There will be plenty of people out there that, no matter what you are paid, will say they would do it for less. *Bob* - agreed, except I would put Bent in number 11 rather than number 10 given the number of whopping signing-on pay cheques he's managed to procure throughout his very average, mercenary career.

I hope Bent is never even given a chance to try and score for England