NJS

I think going to the games is a benchmark of whether you care enough to rise above the shite - the number of wankers following England is immense and I have mates who acknowledge this but still embrace it. Even with my lack of the patriotism gene, I couldn't associate myself with England game goers even admitting that Newcastle's crowd has a fair proportion of similar elements - my tolerance passes that benchmark.

I think Terry was exposed because of Ferdinand's absence - Terry for me is a better version of Steven Taylor - doesn't read the game at all but is good at reacting and the do or dive blockes etc. Without a game reader he was shown up for that - especially by "clever" players. Of course England really need Woodgate but that's a different pisser.

Carrick? Aye but he's been off the boil for about 2 years. I suppose you could add Hargreaves as well in the same context. As someone else said, the reverence for Lampard and Gerrard is a stumbling block - especially if you then won't even play one of them where he's useful.

Carrick?

SSN were quoting cold facts which had 7 shots for them and 6 for England which they said made it sound even. For me Germany created clear chances and had goalscorers in the team who could finish. I also think if they hadn't used their subs, they could easily have had another couple and that would have applied even if England had scored in the second half. Also Chez mentioned impetus from the diallowed goal but surely England would have gone "all out" just the same in the second half wheteher it was 2-2 or 1-2 as they wouldn't know how to play a patient game so I still think they would have been hit on the break.

It certainly has become a CV box ticker for too many.

It's always sold itself as the most eclectic one musically (as well as on atmosphere) so you know what you're getting but a lot of the stuff I saw (and noticed on the bill) would always have me asking why would a festival crowd want to see that? I know Stevie Wonder is an important musical icon but surely not to a lot of people's taste (I know as I've said before I'm quite narrow in my tastes).

I disagree a bit with doing down the Germans - Mexico got at Argentina quite well in spells and I reckon it will be a pretty even game. I also think that the pace of Ghana would have been a problem for the centre-halves.

I think there two factors from the Premier league - the players at the top 5 or 6 as it is now are too used to "easy" games against the relegation fodder/ up to the level of Birmingham/Stoke and believe their hype. Also they are used to the majority of decisions going their way which affects results. Gerrard got booked against the US for dissent and he had a look on his face whioh screamed "but I say worse than that every week in England". I would also point out that twice in the last 5 years we have had goal line incidents which were infinitely iffier than yesterdays - the one at Anfield about 4 years ago which I think was probably in but where it was physically impossible for the linesman to be able to see to give it and the one for Tevez at old trafford in the 6-0. Both were given without a nanosecond of hesitation or investigation and I think these players come to expect it.

I know I'm insular in only caring about NUFC but today made me think of us against Watford twice. I've been an advocate of goal line technology since seeing a Mick Quinn goal disallowed at Vicarage road in 1990 when Coton whose body was spanning the line reached behind himself to claw the ball out and I just happened to be standing right behind the linesman in line with it who refused to give it - either blindness, cowardice or corruption being the only valid explanations. I also remember the last time we played them in the premier league where they scored a goal identical to Tevez' but without the defenders to provide any doubt.

As an almost neutral I have to say I find it continuously funny how so many good players can be so shit. I honestly thought having a winner as manager would make the difference - I suppose "so shit, even an Italian cunt couldn't make them winners" is a canny epitath. I also have to say how much infinitely better an Argentina Vs Germany match will be than the alternative - though its always a downer from a general world cup occasion when England go out.

Watching the Italians whinge about the Slovak's time-wasting "injuries" at the end was fucking great.

maybe a tad harsh Well if the Yanks can use their vast prison population as slave labour then we could combine that with my other "idea" which I use to repond to paedo hysteria of taking all kids into camps at birth and releasing them at 16 to produce a prison/workhouse/education/slave labour utopia. Unfortunately it would have to be policed to a nazi level - you'd have traders in food stamps and street sellers selling cider for stamps so you'd have to tie them to people and shops against a record of purchases. Sounds good in theory though.

One of the few right wing/Sci-fi ideas I subscribe to as I've said before is global sterilisation with the antidote on licence - probably a few years away practically as well as ethically. As you say any "punishment" at the monent takes it out on the kids rather than the breeders - maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses. And any punishing measures only perpetuate social problems. I think Labour are partly to blame and I think the last Conservative government are too. They basically started it with their policies in the 80s that created the first generations of people who had little or no hope of finding work. Labour changed that to an extent but they probably made it a 'cushier number' on the dole. In a way that solves some social problems but it's obviously creating others at the same time. I'm not sure it'll ever be solved, short of the 'Brave New World' type of solution you give. I have no problem with your solution btw. Manc-mag mentioned it recently too and while, like him, it's way off my usual civil liberties / human rights standpoint, I think it's the human rights of the kids / future generations that should override ones desire to have kids without any concern for the consequences. The groundowrk certainly started in the 80s - though even when I was at school with a finish date minus 6th form of 1980, I can remember talk for a few years before that of the possibility of life as a "dole wallah" so maybe it was just a post-war inevitibility that we'd have mass unemployment as society changed. I freely admit that Labour propogated Thatcher's policy in the area because as I said economics now seems to demand someething to keep wages low - maybe that's now been superceded by immigration so we could run with "full" employment again in the future. I also think that the ease of credit before the last two years contributed in giving people on low incomes a lifestyle that was really beyond them in harsh practical terms which now means people seeing people on benefits with plasmas etc which irks. As a lefty I've always known that this area was troublesome - spending most of my life in the North East certainly exposes you to people who at times make you question why you should care about them but I think you have to get beyond that. Even with limitations on breeding, I've always found it hard to think of practical policies that would end the generations of "scum" we know exist but I'd like to think people will continue to try and not just wrote them off. I think writing them off will lead to eventual serious civil unrest.

One of the few right wing/Sci-fi ideas I subscribe to as I've said before is global sterilisation with the antidote on licence - probably a few years away practically as well as ethically. As you say any "punishment" at the monent takes it out on the kids rather than the breeders - maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins? Its pretty hard to even start to think about a sensible reply when you argue like that. Bizzare. It's a serious question to someone who would like to see benefits reduced - how much do you think it costs to provide for a family of 5 kids? Remember in the work scenario they would have to pay rent/mortgage/bills. If not in work then we're just talking about food - unforunately the vicious circle is that low income means shit food = unhealthy kids - are you happy with that? What do you think should do in your world where they have a smaller amount and they run out of money 2 days before giro day? You would end up with either dependence on friends, dependence on charity or dependence on crime - which do you prefer?

No - He had to avoid all of the "encouragements" that were introduced like Job Start and Job club which have continued in various forms and have actually been added to with Job Cnetre Plus stuff - the difference now is experience - we now have second or third generation "professional" scroungers who can beat any system they come up. This is of course a pisser but the amount it would cost to police properly and the damage it would cause genuine claimants probably outweighs the gains - short of a few examples being made which I wouldn't object to. It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins? What would be the level of benefit for a family with 5 kids that would make you happy - £100 pw? If this means that people who lose their jobs and are unemployed for a shortish/medium time (the vast majority of claimants) can actually survive then I don't begrudge it. I'd also say an increase in "Income" over 13 years is quite reasonable. Undoubtedly - sadly for 30 years now the country has been setup to run that way - unless you can magic up 2 or 3 million jobs, it isn't going to change.

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that? I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already? Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous. The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job". His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout". The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual. You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again. If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled? Don't fucking quote the Blackstuff as some kind of nostalgic tribute to Thatcherism - I notice you don't refer to the rest of the show which illustrated a UK exactly the same as its heading for now - think of the main character slaughtering his pets for food for his family - a Tory ideal I'm sure. "only blame for the situation is Labour" - have a fucking word with yourself man - I have a second cousin who left school in 84 and never worked for about 15 years thanks to various fiddles - how the fuck is Labour to blame for him? Of course its wrong - but until global sterilisation is introduced and capitalists are paying worthwhile wages I don't see an alternative - would you see the kids starve? (I'm also still waiting for the legislation that increased benefits).

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that? I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already? Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous.

My Man always told me that while she had respect for individual doctors she would never forget that as a group they opposed the founding of the NHS.

Wouldn't it be easier to list the countries Britain hasn't had a war against?

I'm not one to spout patriotic "to be born in England is to win the lottery in life" bollocks and I do recognise some people are pretty poor but compared to almost every other country on earth we don't do badly. If the US still counts as the richest country on earth then they definitely have a worse problem as I think they have obscene amounts of real poverty.

If they define poverty as a percentile of a median income, then obviously the number could go up while at the same time the number in deep shit could be reduced - ie if the country as a whole is so well off that everyone has 2 cars then only having one could be counted as being poor - while the number not having any would be less.

I read something about this the other week - they've tied in a contracted out agency type service with forcing people to prove they are looking for jobs. It does seem that anecdotally, the staff are not the best.

Thatcher and Clinton?