Happy Face

'Messiah'; Hallelujah Chorus - Handel

Foo Fighters - My Hero Nas - Hero Neu! - Hero Aceyalone - Supahero Pink Floyd - The Hero's return Metallica - Hero of the Day John Lennon - Working Class Hero Jonny Cash - A Legend In My Time

Think your doing it wrong and googling it rather than jimbos instructions. my daughters just had the same message as you but now has it working. Got yo the safari address bar, not the google side. Delete what's there and paste iphone.tvcatchup.com. No www just as it is. It should then work fine. Why're you snooping on your daughters phone? I take it you don't have teenage daughters! What's the longest you've gone telling them they'll have their pocket money by the end of the week?

The Metal ABBA tribute band are coming to town soon. I have to say I'm tempted.

"Let's see how your red snapper likes this red snapper!" "No-one was ever hurt. She might have been hit with a shark a few times for disobeying orders, but she didn't get hurt"

Your argument might hold water if Fop wasn't in the top ten posters at Toontastic. Aside: That must be the first time Fop has ever ended an argument.

On the battery on e-bay my model number didn't match but the ipod looked identical. What you paying on ebay? They're cheap as owt at ipod doctor with a full kit... https://ipoddoctor-batteries.co.uk/index.ph...=cat&cid=37 £5 on e-bay, cheers though HF. Whey, if a drained battery comes through the post and you can't get the ipod open with a butter knife don't say I didn't warn you. It's the same kit as they're offering, but for the sake of a fiver I think I'll go with them you've recommended, is there P & P on top of the yul brenner? 1st Class Mail - £1.99 Recorded Delivery - £2.99. Special Delivery - £6.99.

Whenever I see "Harewood" I think of Geoffrey Har-HarWood. Assistant wardrobe man on Spartacus.

On the battery on e-bay my model number didn't match but the ipod looked identical. What you paying on ebay? They're cheap as owt at ipod doctor with a full kit... https://ipoddoctor-batteries.co.uk/index.ph...=cat&cid=37 £5 on e-bay, cheers though HF. Whey, if a drained battery comes through the post and you can't get the ipod open with a butter knife don't say I didn't warn you.

http://page.politicshome.com/usa/transatla...obel_prize.html fwiw their chairman also founded and chairs Conservativehome.com So I'd be curious as to the reliability and bias of the site. That one's supposed to be a non-partisan site though. He also founded yougov which is impartial and predicted Labour’s ten-point general election victory in 2001 within one percentage point. The numbers don't seem controversial to me, I can see your point though.

If by 'politically' you mean he doesn't want real reform as much as wants to keep his political sponsors on side and ensure a second term, then I agree 100%. I think thats a naive interpretation of 2009. We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand and yet expect our governments to be more powerful. There is only so much to go around and its shared pretty thinly. Sorry I'm not sure what your point is. "We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand" ...yes, it's a bad thing... "yet expect our governments to be more powerful" ...yes, that would reduce the injustice of a few corporations dictitaing policy for millions of citizens. Of course it's naive and wooly to imagine that our government shouldn't be bought. But then I'm a wooly liberal who thinks government should use laws to protect it's citizens from corporations whether it's from the moneylenders, expansion of the military complex, damage to the environment, dangerous foodstuffs, tobacco, medicines, electrical goods or any number of things the lobbyists will always try to keep as dishonest as possible in the name of profit. I agree, am just saying that was the status quo when he came to power i.e. the way of the world. With power already skewed so far towards the corporations, how much power do you think a President has? A lot but not enough to change the world overnight. That's not to say that such inaction should be endorsed by the Nobel commitee or go unremarked upon by the media though. He should be constantly pressured to improve things.

I'm reading Hammer of the Gods the Led Zeppelin biography at the moment. Turns out Jimmy Page is a filthy rotter who was diddling 14 year old girls on tour. What with Polanski, Woody Allen and Charlie Chaplin I'm starting to wonder if any of my heroes don't have a penchant for underage girls.

He had a good go at the literature prize this year. Released lots of fiction. Never looked like he was in the running for economics though.

http://page.politicshome.com/usa/transatla...obel_prize.html

Where's Fish? He should have called you a dick by now. You haven't even got a hangover. Good luck.

If by 'politically' you mean he doesn't want real reform as much as wants to keep his political sponsors on side and ensure a second term, then I agree 100%. I think thats a naive interpretation of 2009. We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand and yet expect our governments to be more powerful. There is only so much to go around and its shared pretty thinly. Sorry I'm not sure what your point is. "We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand" ...yes, it's a bad thing... "yet expect our governments to be more powerful" ...yes, that would reduce the injustice of a few corporations dictitaing policy for millions of citizens. Of course it's naive and wooly to imagine that our government shouldn't be bought. But then I'm a wooly liberal who thinks government should use laws to protect it's citizens from corporations whether it's from the moneylenders, expansion of the military complex, damage to the environment, dangerous foodstuffs, tobacco, medicines, electrical goods or any number of things the lobbyists will always try to keep as dishonest as possible in the name of profit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/1...ama-white-house at the bold bit.

If by 'politically' you mean he doesn't want real reform as much as wants to keep his political sponsors on side and ensure a second term, then I agree 100%.

No it doesnt, stop being so melodramatic. Where you see double standards, i see complex situations with multiple stakeholders, needs and objectives, without a single solution. Obama also 'wants' to reform healthcare. Thats not exactly a sparkling success either. At least the ideas and what he says are right, hence influencing and cajoling a whole generation of americans with the right words. The soundbite is mightier than the sword. I'm glad you put 'wants' in quotes there.

We all know that political decisions have no long term affect.

I've only got the gut

Yeah, it's Parky's fault. He didn't say why they were similarly dodgy.

Where does it do that? I know you don't mean literally, but i can't see anywhere that it states a president can or should run amock implementing his own ideas (like Bush did). I've only scanned it this time though. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader has stated however that congress will support the president in whatever he decides to do in Afghanistan http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/world/as...tml?_r=1&hp So he clearly has some sway if he wants a peaceful resolution, rather than sending another 40,000 troops in to do some killin'. I think he's clearly attacking the prize for the selection of this and previous winners. How is that not well thought through? The award gives legitimacy to the wars, the torture, the indefinite detention and the double standards practised by Obama over the past year and allows him to continue down the same path. It convinces him the approach being taken is just.

He hurled taunts of obsolescence at John Bonham in November 1978. Daft cunt.

Yup. I'm no expert, but.... I thought the Russian Oligarchs took advantage of the rapid privatisation forced on them by the IMF. Snapping up state assets at a fraction of their true worth and making billions at the expense of the public and the economy. China never took IMF funds did they? Their plan for long term growth included privatisation when the economy was in a position to handle it, so China has gone from strength to strength while Russia's financial clout dwindled and it's billionaires fucked off elsewhere with the cash. Also, wiki says the word oligarch theoretically means "one of the few rulers", so I'm not sure having more billionaires than any country bar one could warrant those billionaires being given that name. Who suggested that they could? Parky said they're as dodgy as the oligarchs. I don't know what the similarity is between them, so I was was stating the differences as I see them. I don't know much about how China has prospered so I'd love to learn more, but what I do know is that poverty has reduced dramatically thanks to their economic policy and the growth in business.... Checking up on it - "Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 64% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty during this period." Wheras in Russia poverty only grew through the 90s prior to Putin getting in. The oligarchs raped the place.