Toonpack

Potentially months of due dilligence, the new owners'll definitely do it. Who know's who they'll want as amanager, who's going to produce the cash for transfers Back where we were when Keegan walked Glad he's going but timing is shite

I'm really not surpirsed by the time it's taking, in fact it could be a good sign. Shearer wanted the job BUT he said himself there had to be major changes, I didn't get the impression he was in the fettle to negotiate very much, especially if it wasn't evident early on in the process that the will was there. I really can't see him being prepared to bargain for hours/days on end. I reckon a deal was done early on early in the discussions, it'll now be with the lawyers (drafting contracts and reviewing etc etc - normal shite). It's not about him anymore I wouldn't be surprised if the ongoing discussions are around the squad and the mountain of work they've got to do to get ready for life in the championship, who's going, who he'd like to keep, who he'd like to get and in (players and coaches) and what order all that stuff has to happen. Also Ego-wise, your not going to announce anything around the Champ League final, wouldn't make much of a news splash, but mebe's I'm a cynic Circumstantially - Bassong's lass told a Skunker (who lives in the same building) that "Shearer had offered him a new contract"

Players without brains but who could pass accurately over 3 yards would be nice

Word up north is he's going to Celtic (from Aberdeen and Hearts supporter rumour mills)

World economies in meltdown and all of a sudden a flu pandemic to make people worry about something else, hmmmmmmmmmm Not that I'm cynical in any way

Everlast and Santana - Put Your Lights On

The navy bars make the Citeh one looks like it's got pockets

I totally get what you're saying snakey. I've always been affected by it - the thought of what happened has sent shivers down my spine ever since. The lack of accountability has fuelled the feelings over the years. I do believe that if justice had been served, it wouldn't be as big a thing as it is. It's more than just Liverpool though - football itself changed that day. It was heading in a direction where we'd all have been branded as a problem - fans had been contained within cages and then the government wanted everyone to carry an identity card. It's because of what happened on that day that football is the way it is today in my book. The fact that it was Liverpool fans and happened at Hillsborough is inconsequential. It could have happened at any time, to any club in any stadium. With my lass being a Liverpool fan, I have had more visibility to it than I did before. I saw her about an hour ago and she broke down, says she's been doing so all day long and then was profusely apologetic for doing so. Still after all these years it hurts her like hell and she didn't even go. Danny is right - it is a time for rememberance but not just about those who died. We should appreciate the good it did for the game, particualrly making it a safer environment so that the young generations can watch and enjoy the beautiful game. BUt it didn't, it happened to the same club's fans twice !!

Tbh if KK hadn't quit we'd be above you. Probably true, and KK is as much to blame for our current mire as Ashley and his crew, the big baby should have stuck it out, He could quite easily have fought his corner from within, and made them sack him if they didn't like it, instead he ran away. Fucking coward. The manner of his departure made it virtually impossible to find a replacement of any ability, even if our lot had a slightest clue about the game it would have been difficult, it was impossible given their lack of ability. KK must have seen that and he should have stayed on, but all he wanted was the £££'s

Well it is and it isn't. Abortions are ok if the mother's life is in danger but condoms are still not allowed even though it is, in effect, condemning many thousands of people to a life with HIV. Granted, the link is slightly more tenuous but the same principle should apply. The problem is that the church has an alternative to the use of condoms but as you say, it's not realistic. I meant how I see it rather than how the Catholic Church views it. And what happens to all the Pope's spunk anyway? He has a Papal receptacle for it, it's got a special name which is...................erm............Oh aye! I remember, it's called choirboys

If he broke in - absolutely Justice

If there is anything left to arrest. There'll be plenty left, I mean I'll get a police cordon to protect me in my perfectly acceptable demonstration, erm.............won't I

I'm going to stand outside the Mosque up the west end with a sign saying Allah sucks pigs cocks (and he swallows) and see who gets arrested first, me or the muslims who'll berate me.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There are however two major issues here: 1. Some of those banners are probably illegal (and action should have been taken about that). 2. People demonstrating against say a conservative muslim march would not be allowed to do so/would be arrested for doing so (which is wrong, hypocritical and illegal - yet it does happen). I'm not fishing here but genuinely interested. Do you have an example of this you can cite? You can actually see it in this demonstration, when the more general crowd verbally turned on these demonstrators the police's gloves came off very quickly. Two arrests were made, both have been confirmed as people who took exception to the "demonstration"

.......exactly, freedom of speech is there to protect the ideals and opinions that we disagree with otherwise whats the point in having it. To a point, but would you agree people should be allowed to protest against black people or gays ???

Little wonder it's a "rare species"

Rascist At least spell it right, dumbo. spelling is soooo old fashioned

Rascist

Can you spell out why it is abusing a right? The banners as stated in the article would be distasteful imo, but that is about it. If you have freedom of speech (and demonstration) it has to apply to all to work. I think calling people butchers and r@pists who are just doing their jobs maybe considered as abusing that right, wouldn't you? If I was holding up a placard saying something equally abusive and untrue about someone else I would be, quite rightly, charged. There is a long anti-war tradition (demonstrations) in England, it just so happens these are brown men protesting against white men. As I said the banners were distasteful. They were a tad more than distastefull IMO, if it'd been the other way around, or even football fans for that matter, there'd have been dogs in and baton charges. Bet I wouldn't have been protected from "the mob" if I'd held up an "Allah is Satan" banner, I'd have been carted off and charged with one of the many loony-lefty laws this country now has.

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies. I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities. There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.