Happy Face

I hate it when a waiter asks about how the day's been or what we're up to after. Give me a menu and leave me to talk to the people I came for a meal with dip-shit.

The comments are an even greater source of comedy gold...

Best Daily Mail article I've ever read. I'll not link to the shitrag.

So you are basically saying that a shoplifter that refuses to repent for their crime should be held for longer than say someone that is convicted of killing 100's of people but does go through the motions to satisfy the system, and that that is "justice"? An all new and spectacular low.

Nice one.

If we're doing brands we just don't like then I fucking despise Ben Sherman and Helly Hansen.

The VG at Horsley Hill once sold me a carrot where you could bend it so the ends met without it snapping. I've never been back. And (owner of my local corner shop) Basra's wife makes up the prices on the spot and invariably adds 15-25p to every transaction. If I see she's working i go to Mace a bit further up the road now.

Was supposed to go and see him at The Clock. Not surprised.

So no-one boycoutts on the principle of murder, war profiteering and that sort of thing? http://karim.gnn.tv/blogs/11333/Report_The...il_Corporations

IBM

I try to avoid Nestle and Coca Cola. I'm not militant about it though.

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later. Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't. Aye, poor choice of words. I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant. I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity. EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal. What was Biggs convicted of anyway? These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?). http://www.wikipedia.org/ Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly. Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)? Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)? I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt. Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system? Very strange view. As always Fop, your patented change of subject amuses me. If you want to discuss the discrepancies of sentencing, we can, but Megrahi got life, Biggs didn't. "Justice" is all about sentencing surely? Although clearly Megrahi didn't get "life" in any context. But you brought it up as an example, not Fop, so how much time has Biggs served now? You think justice starts and ends at sentencing? Should there be no incentivisation for good behaviour or rehabilitation? What about the context of the court issuing him a life sentence with a recommended 20 years before parole eligibility? I didn't bring it up "as an example" I'm not comparing or contrasting the jail terms they were issued or have served (that's you changing the subject). I'm saying (and i'm not the first) that the two are inextricably linked. That the U-turn Jack Straw did on Biggs in the space of a month was directly related to the impending release of (what the state have judged) a mass murderer. As John Snow says in the article linked above "it would have been untenable politically for Biggs, whose release had been so recently rejected and who had killed no one, to stay in prison whilst Megrahi who had allegedly killed 270 people was freed."

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later. Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't. Aye, poor choice of words. I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant. I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity. EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal. What was Biggs convicted of anyway? These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?). http://www.wikipedia.org/ Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly. Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)? Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)? I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt. Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system? Very strange view. As always Fop, your patented change of subject amuses me. If you want to discuss the discrepancies of sentencing, we can, but Megrahi got life, Biggs didn't.

See this is what the Chelsea fans are saying but from what I understand, all Real Madrid were doing was publically declaring an interest in a player and forcing teams to agree to sell them their players, where in this case, Lens have not agreed to sell or release the player and he's come anyway. From what i understand. Real Madrid's President calls players up directly, while they're at other clubs. But those players don't play for Real until their clubs have accepted a bid... So it's not for tapping up? Is it for fielding an unregistered player? How did players get registered if contracts weren't agreed with the sellers? Is it not the FA/FIFA that have fucked up when that happens? Genuine questions btw

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later. Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't. Aye, poor choice of words. I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant. I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity. EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal. What was Biggs convicted of anyway? These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?). http://www.wikipedia.org/ Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly. Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)? Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)? I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt. Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

See this is what the Chelsea fans are saying but from what I understand, all Real Madrid were doing was publically declaring an interest in a player and forcing teams to agree to sell them their players, where in this case, Lens have not agreed to sell or release the player and he's come anyway. From what i understand. Real Madrid's President calls players up directly, while they're at other clubs.

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later. Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't. Aye, poor choice of words. I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant. I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity. EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal. What was Biggs convicted of anyway? These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?). http://www.wikipedia.org/

They're not a British club though. Can't believe Madrid haven't been done.

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later. Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't. Aye, poor choice of words. I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant. I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity. EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal. What a precedent to set. Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-...megrahi-justice

Is that the Turkish? Aye, that's the one. Just tell your lass to keep off the hubbly bubbly pipes next time Didn't go on the Friday, went to the Mighty Mussel instead (had a lush spicy sausage that blew my ears off). Reason was, I've got membership of the Gourmet Society, and couldn't use it (buy one get one free) on a friday or Saturday....so went on Tuesday gone instead. Enjoyed the food...but then they said they wouldn't take the gourmet society card, so i had to give them the exact change for the bill and complain to the Gourmet society about them. Still got starters, mains and beer for 2 for under £40 like. Some places can be arsey about the Gourmet Society, they often state you have to book in advance and tell them you have the card or they insist you pay full price. Most places are fine though if you just mention it when getting the bill. I mentioned it when trying to book on the friday and they said it couldn't be used on a Friday or a Saturday. Which makes it doubley shite that when I mentioned it when booking on the Tuesday and they said "fine", afterwards, when i gave them it and asked for the bill, they said they don't do it at all any more.....even though they're still on the website. Anyway, like people have said, it's canny shite all round. Gaucho Grill on Friday. Been looking forward to this.

Is that the Turkish? Aye, that's the one. Just tell your lass to keep off the hubbly bubbly pipes next time Didn't go on the Friday, went to the Mighty Mussel instead (had a lush spicy sausage that blew my ears off). Reason was, I've got membership of the Gourmet Society, and couldn't use it (buy one get one free) on a friday or Saturday....so went on Tuesday gone instead. Enjoyed the food...but then they said they wouldn't take the gourmet society card, so i had to give them the exact change for the bill and complain to the Gourmet society about them. Still got starters, mains and beer for 2 for under £40 like.

I might sound a bit Shepherd like here but I don't see why people who want to pay for Sky so they can watch the premier with or without their team should contribute to Accrington Stanley. I think football at every level should live or die on its own merits which is how I feel about any "entertainment". I've always thought the argument about how if Man U games were shown on Sky or the Internet for that matter at 3pm on a Saturday it would stop people going to see non-league games to be shit anyway - if people would rather do that then they aren't fans of the team anyway. The problem is the widening gap. 20 teams will pull in hundreds of millions from around the world.

That's the real tragedy for me, i.e. you have all that money pouring into football via SKY and about 90% of it must end up in the pockets of PL players. By the time you get to grassroots level virtually all of it has gone. I guess it could be worse though. Imagine every club gets to stream their own games on their website live and charge their fans as they see fit. A lot less money would filter through to accrington Stanley wouldn't it? EDIT: Man U and Chelsea would probably be a llot better off too.