mikejh45

Under the new fast track rules the ban starts immediately unless you appeal and you can't appeal against 2 yellows, i think lol

If that's the case, you can call me Mr. Cynical because I think he might not want to play in the cup for us.

Just got in so I thought I'd throw my bit in early:

Good Points -

1) Clean sheet, solid if unspectacular defending.

2) Taylor running Northampton ragged.

3) Excellent debut from Byfield.

4) Good team performance.

Bad Points -

1) Hughes's stupid first booking.

2) Referee stupidly booking Hughes for what looked a ridiculously obvious dive.

Comments please.

nah he's from Doncaster isn't he?

It's fine, he clueless about Rovers!!!

FREE RONNIE BIGS NOW

Leave him where he is. He enjoyed his time in Brazil and only returned when he had nothing left and couldn't pay his medical bills. No sympathy whatsoever!!! He was sentenced to a 35 year stretch and escaped after serving 15 months. So, by my calculations, to get half-sentence parole he should serve about 17 years. He's been in prison since 2001 so he should do another 8 years or so.

And if anyone thinks I'm being a bit harsh, then consider the poor guard Biggs and the rest NEEDLESSLY coshed to near death who never recovered and went prematurely to his grave.

on lw it says that it was a push on lomax

Lomax gets a bit twitchy crossing the halfway line, never mind being in position to win a penalty!!!

It's an indoor training facility. Taylor's been seen trying to bend penalty kicks around a 4 trolley wall.

But the girl on the checkout saved it and Taylor netted the rebound.

You are Richard Littlejohn and I claim my £5.

Will you take a cheque?

It was this come back that has caused the problems that we are now facing.

 

As for conviction politicians, gimme a sensible and able politician anyday of the week rather than one who just blindly follows her their beliefs regardless of the outcomes.

Disagree with your first point. The country was bankrupt and had to go cap in hand to the IMF on 4 occasions. Strong measures had to be taken at the time. It took a number of years before we could stand on our feet economically. Yes, mistakes were made and situations could have been done differently but I could not see the likes of Foot or Kinnock making the country better only worse. And just to make the point that I am not a Tory, I was seriously following John Smith (who, from my memories made sensible proposals) and unfortunately died before he could make an impact.

Secondly, we have too many who toe the party line. Two examples come to mind. How many labour (I use them as an example because they are in power) MPs have voted to close A & E depts. at General Hospital or close local Post Offices and then blatantly protest when the hit lists include their own. A conviction politician would refuse to vote for the policies.

During these difficult economic times I'm shocked and saddened to know our players are throwing their money down the drain reading trash like the Torygraph!!

 

Maher Out!!!

Probably doesn't buy the Guardian because he can spell and doesn't fancy one of the council tax wasting jobs on offer.

This country's :censored:ed - no matter who takes over!

We were in the late 70's as well but came back and can do it again with a strong leader with sensible policies. Not sure if any of the present lot have the strength of conviction. Too many MPS are career politicians and not enough conviction politicians.

Income Tax is one section's tax burden.

The one section I was referring to are the motorists who already pay significant amount of tax as well as income tax.

Simple answer - we the tax payer pay for it, we all know that. Whether the tax payers is a motorist, ballonist, unicyclist or whatever, the tax payer will foot the bill.

 

I did put a paragraph about freight on my post but deleted it as it was a bit off topic but I fully agree freight should be put back on rail or even canal - just think of the jobs that would be created sorting out the rail network and the canal network.

 

What we forget is that Britain is such an old country that it has on the whole evolved rather than been planned and as a result we are stuck with an infrastructure that is no longer fit for purpose, train lines don't go where they are needed, roads go to the wrong place and a lot of buildings are in the wrong place. What this country needs is a massive programme of bulldozing and rebuilding but no politiican is going to argue for this as it will cost a fortune and the nimbies will be right out in force.

 

As for nuclear - possibly, fission rather than fusion but either way more research needed to see how to deal properly with the waste products of both. Same as with proper renewables like wind, sun and wave - they might be expensive to get running but once they are going the raw material of the fuel is free.

 

We are at a point where we are looking at some big questions and it really does need some thinking and solutions that fall outside of the box. Sadly, we know small mindedness is going to win.

Agreed that we should ALL pay and through our income tax not increasing one section's tax burden.

I fully agree with stich on this - we have to do something about the reliance on the finite resource that is oil, it isn't doing us any good in the long term. We have dropped the ball on this one getting to the state we are now, we are going to see further increases in the price of oil sooner than we think, opec have already cut production but to take a longer term view of it, China and India's oil requirements are growing, if (when) the rest of the world's oil needs grow we will all be shafted.

 

To approach it from another angle, studies have shown that it was quicker to travel in London by horse and cart than by car, can't be far off that in Manchester once you hit Deansgate in rush-hour? This surely can't be good for anyone, I know my blood pressure rises when I sit in near stationary traffic and I can't be the only one.

 

The fact of the matter is the model we are currently using is not sustainable and alternatives have to be found whether the congestion charge is the right answer I don't know but the current free for all certainly isn't. We have to look at where we are now and where we would like to be and figure out how best to get there, the ultimate aim is less cars on the road - for oil reasons, for green reasons, for economic reasons, for not having to sit behind Doris while she does her make-up in the rear-view during rush-hour reasons, so you can perhaps get out of 2nd gear in town - whatever reason you choose the goal is less traffic on the roads.

The argument is not about developing alternative systems of transport but who pays for it. I strongly feel that the motorist is overburdened with taxation.

At one time, most of freight in this country was moved by rail, but the visionary known as Doctor Beeching decided to close a large chunk of the railway system.

In the good ole USA, Amtrak used to put a free railway siding to your business if built adjacent to the rail system. Shame we can't do that here, but the tunnels can't cope with the container sizes.

The reason for a cut of production in oil is due to worldwide demand falling (inc. China & India). OPEC have no interest in protecting this resource and cut production because sales where falling to $60/barrel so by turning off the tap, they hope to create a demand so prices go up to their preferred $100/barrel.

If we are serious about alternatives then go full speed ahead for nuclear fuel.

I totally agree and thats why, even though I live outside the ring's but work inside the rings, I'll be voting 'YES' to the congestion charge question. I would love a reliable alternative however the trains and buses (combined with having to cross the centre of Manchester for my particular journey to work) do not link up well enough. The metrolink proposals are, for me, spot on.

 

However I dont think higher petrol prices is the right way forward, why should I suffer from having to shell out £8 a week more on petrol just to stop other people making uneeded journeys? Now while I accept that £8 a week might not be alot, but over a year its £416. Thats a big difference. I have to drive to work because the public transport system is not good enough. I am registered to car share with someone else at work, no-one (as yet) has come forward living in my area. The way to go is higher road tax. I have a very economical car, its on the lowest car tax banding, that way, both the amount of petrol used and the emmisions are reduced. Greatley benefitting both the public and the gvnt and encouraging people away from 'gas guzzlers' and towards cars like the aygo/C1/107.

Motorists already pay a phenomenal amount of money into the tax coffers from various sources i.e. road tax, taxation on the oil barrel, VAT on fuel, insurance tax. And from all this revenue coming in, WE THE MOTORIST get about 15% back in road projects. Govts. past and present use the car driver as a cash cow when their :censored:e policies are failing and need a boost in funding.

Have you given any thought to the idea that even if you get more people out of their cars and onto these new transport initiatives then less revenue is raised? So who has to make up the shortfall? The motorist of course!!!

We need a balanced taxation system that all contribute to.

This could raise a debate. I’ve not been busy today, at all. Decided to voice this on here after failing to get onto the radio…..see if I’m on my own on this one.

Hearing all about the Luke McCormick thing all over again today following this goal celebration got me thinking. I have thought about this kind of thing a lot before – not least because of our own Lee Hughes

McCormick is made out to be a monster in the media, most agree. His mate has made a gesture in support and now the mourning families are on the radio, “we’re appalled, it’s disgusting, we demand an apology”. Now no doubt many of us would, if biased as they are, be the same, but I think it’s too far. I obviously don’t know McCormick, maybe he’s a tosser of the highest order, maybe he’s generally a decent man who made an idiotic decision, whilst drunk may I add, to drive. What I do know is he’s an idiot who made an idiots mistake and got massively unlucky……not a monster who now needs lambasting forever and ever!! It’s not like he’s sat in his cell laughing and fantasising at the tragedy……I bet he’s also a broken man, leaving a broken family. Let’s afford him a little support of his friends please.

Now, getting to the point, I think there’s something seriously wrong with society and the justice system. He should have got more than 7 years you say? Maybe he should, but not as punishment for killing those boys, as punishment for his crime, which was drink and dangerous driving.

For me the consequences of a crime committed shouldn’t alter the charge and/or the punishment. That should be determined by the crime that was consciously committed. For me, McCormick ought to serve the same punishment as the man who gets pulled over on a Sunday morning and fails a breath test with no tragic consequences. They are guilty of the same crime. It’s common sense. Following a precedent, if you will. Now, before you give me both barrels, I’m not implying that McCormick should get off with a 12 month driving ban, I’m implying the man who fails the breath test ought to be jailed for 7 years also. In a nutshell they both commit the same crime, yet McCormick is punished to a much greater degree basically because he was unlucky. After all, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if one of the parents of the poor boys has, at some time, driven over the legal limit…….I certainly have, although not for some time and I never will do again.

The term ‘prevention is better than cure’ comes to mind. Surely it is better to threaten 7 year jail sentences to any drink driver, as opposed to the occasional ‘unlucky’ one made an example of. That would serve better to stop drunks driving, and reduce road deaths as a result.

Going off a on a tangent, I also noticed the irony in the same radio also advertising the fact that 46% of crime is alchohol related. What the :censored:? Then why is it legal to such an extent? Why is it marketed so much? Why is it socially encouraged? At the same time the planting of a (cannabis) seed is illegal, presumably incase you go and spend £7 giggling in McDonalds. The potential punishment far outweighs that of the average drink driver, and even rivals McCormicks sentence!?!?!? The same goes for ‘popping pills’, presumably incase you can’t get it up when you get to bed with that girl you’ve had a fun, 100% trouble free, booze free night out with…………the world’s mad.

I’l tell you why booze is legal, because it’s become socially accepted over hundreds of years. If alcohol was dicscovered today it would be made Class A immediately. I’ve grown to dislike booze…..to me it means hangovers, expense, potential embarrassment, potential trouble. Yes, it’s ok in moderation, but then what isn’t? Anyway, back to bashing McCormick for falling into a trap society carelessly set him, and those 2 poor boys, up for……

Excellent post, Stitch.

Especially after today's headlines regarding stopping "happy-hours" and supermarkets selling alcohol as loss leaders.

looks good to me

The problem I can see with this lineup is the defensive pressure on Maher OR Allott in front of a defence this needs a couple of games to get up to speed and playing with each other.. I think we need both to play .

Agree, except that if anything petrol for private use should be more expensive in my opinion. The government can try whatever they want to get people out of cars but the only way is to price them out of them.

Two points:

Why should additional taxes be levied on private motorists? There is already an excessive tax burden on motorists already.

This government (and previous ones to a slightly lesser extent) are quite happy to increase fuel costs without having an alternative in place. In the 80's, the then Tory govt. and Graham Stringers Manchester Council worked very well in delivering the first Metrolink. Now, you get permission given to rail companies to increase rail costs and reduce number of carriages therefore making it more difficult to get to work.

and you ignore the fact, that what a lot of people now admit to performance wise, was evident over a year ago. just that he got injured, and people pretended that he was playing well all along.

away from the pitch i bear him no ill will whatsoever. if things are going wrong for him and its not his fault, then does he need my sympathy on a message board? doubtful, but i offer it.

Daz. You'll get no arguments from me over his performances since he came back from injury if you look at my previous posts/comments.

why remove it anyway? whats up with the big hard barsteward? like i said the other day, is it really beacuse hes been rebuked in public? soft twit has done more than make a rod for his own back, might realise hes not actually a god now.

Some serious personal issues, which if true, would leave everybody's head in a state of broken biscuits if it happened to us.

Enough to say that with the amount of criticism he's had off me recently, he doesn't need it now.

He's a good, solid pro. Let's show our support during this difficult period.

Big Fat John McGinley.

 

Played a few on loan but once he signed a contract he picked up an injury and never played for us.

 

I hated him when we signed him and I hated him even more when he did that to us.

 

But if it wasn't for him we'd have missed out on the Chelsea hot dog incident so I guess he's not all bad

Didn't John agree to his contract being cancelled and also agree not to take any money because he didn't feel he had given anything to Latics?

I remember Tony Hateley signed for us in the early seventies and played, I think, for half a game before retiring through injury!!

I remember that game. Started to warm up by running forwards and then backwards not knowing a ballboy was right behind him picking the ball up and Tony went a-over-t. Priceless!!!

If the story that Stitch put online and quickly removed is true, then I'd like to think we'd all show our support. So, unless it's all nonsense, Gregan-bashing is off limits.

Get yourself sorted, big fellah!!!

Lomax/Hazell/Stam/Jones - simply because of yesterday's second half shutout.

This really is a non-sensical poll.

Yes, Gregan is arguably our best defender but NOBODY has come with a cogent argument/reason why when he is playing, the defensive COMBINATION lets in more goals than other combinations.