angelman

To add to the above.... as the car wasn't sold without a SORN then it must be considered to be roadworthy, whether you said it was for spares or not. As it had no SORN then it has to be roadworthy. That it has 6 months MOT left is irrelevant - MOT does not give carte blanche to drive a car in an unroadworthy condition. It is merely a statement that the car passed on the day of the test and it is up to the owner to keep the car in a roadworthy condition. You are stuffed and potentially a criminal.

from the same link - The vehicle is unroadworthy If the vehicle is unroadworthy, the seller may have committed a criminal offence and you should report them to Consumer Direct on 0845 404 0506 or at: http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk. In Northern Ireland, you should contact ConsumerLine on 0845 600 6262 or at: http://www.consumerline.org. Seems you may have broken the law old boy. Maybe you should give the money back.

STL HTH http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_second_hand_vehicles.htm You bought the vehicle from a private seller You have very few legal rights if you have bought the vehicle from a private seller rather than a dealer. The vehicle doesn't have to be of satisfactory quality. However, if the seller offers a description of the vehicle, it must match the description given. It must also be roadworthy and the seller must have 'good title' to the vehicle. This means that they must be the legal owner in order to sell it to you. If the vehicle doesn't match the description given, you may be entitled to compensation. You may also be entitled to compensation if you have bought an unroadworthy car from a private seller, which has caused injury to someone. However, it may be especially difficult to get compensation from a private seller. You will only be able to claim against a private seller for one of the following reasons: the vehicle doesn't match the description they gave you the seller broke a specific contract term the seller was actually a dealer posing as a private seller the seller did not have good title to the vehicle the vehicle is unroadworthy.

Never quite sure about this soulless stadium line of thinking. All football clubs have a pitch and some stands. The Dell what with being on top of the players I guess had soul, but I still think that it is the crowd that give the soul and not the stadium per se. Sometimes acoustics can play a part, but still it's the crowd which is the major part. I though that there was plenty of good feeling or soul at SMS against WHU as the support (both home and away) was excellent. Empty stadia don't give great atmosphere anywhere. And would people really want to return to the Dell? And are any all seater stadia soulful?

Johnny, make sure they don't put all that finger print powder all over your stuff. A real b*tch to get off!

I have a burglar alarm that is zoned so I set the downstairs every night. Hopefully, should anyone break in, they would leg it when the alarm went off. I know that they can be expensive, but not necessarily so, but I would recommend one to all those that don't. The other thing is to actually set it every night. We can all get a bit lazy. It was probably a good thing that the **** did leg it. Better than letting the red mist descend and God know's what consequences. While it might appeal to the heart beating the hell out of him, the head probably think what would happen if I was then done for GBH/ABH/murder./man slaughter?

Bit unfait on AFC Totton (top of the league) and Bashley FC (in 10th)

^ really? The only empty seats that I saw were in the director's box.

Chaplow for me too.

I really do think that these big clubs are trying to devise a way that they can form a European Super League. I say let them go....see how many supporters turn up to away games. If relegation did go through, clubs like Blackburn and QPR (doubtful they will be PL next season anyway) will either loose all their supporters and ask to leave, or be pushed out. Then when the 20 clubs have been whittled down to 8 or 10, they can go their merry way into Europe or set up like the Scottish PL. If it did go ahead, I would hope that the Football League would set an ultimatum - join us now or that's it and when the **** hits the fan, you can lump it.

Not necessarily. One of the problems with Iran is that they don't sell their oil in USD. Without the petrodollar America is screwed. Iraq got invaded because they were selling their oil in Euros, or that was one of the reasons. Hans Blix (the UN weapons inspector) said he needed a week or two more to prove that there weren't any WMDs but USA/UK ignored that and ploughed straight on in. One of the first things USA did was to revert to selling oil in USD. As that is the case, I think that USA will at some stage want to bring Iran back into line and get them to sell in USD. Not surprised that the Saudis are involved in this.

Yes, I realised that Devil's Ad. was in play and I am as well. You are correct in the fact that we should entrust the politicians to make the correct decisions, but the calibre of MPs is woeful. Does anyone believe that MPs are working for their constituents best interests? The bit about the Upper house was a little TIC but did have the serious point of it used to not working along such partisan lines as it does these days. There is a strong feeling within the country to at least discuss it, yet these wishes are being ignored. Being obstinate about it isn't going to make it go away. To think that they will understand the ramifications is a little unrealistic as well. All I would say is that we got to where we were quite happily (well maybe not, as we were constantly at war with each other) without a political union. I find it interesting about your being aligned with Tories European view. I am a Tory voter, but couldn't vote for them in the European elections. While they might have left the EPP (whether you think that is a good thing or not is another thing) but when they sent their flyers out, they had four main points. One was a referendum, which as we all know isn't going to happen or at least not easily, and the other 3 points were about how Gordon Brown was doing domestically. They seemed to have no policy on Europe. Here is what they say: So they are seemingly happy with a laissez faire attitude and will only have a referendum on future changes. Their 2nd point about being active is pithy. Transfer of sovereignty and power remaining with Westminster is populist and as things stand with the Lisbon treaty is hollow. Not joining the Euro is common sense. Strongly defending is meaningless if we adhere to the Lisbon Treaty. Having one seat, rather than decamping to Strasbourg is sensible but ultimately rather irrelevant. Expansion of Europe - great - this will mean more payments from us to support them, and more jobs relocating to these cheaper development areas. But the bit about having a leading role......while we are a net contributor, why should Eu take our word more seriously over that of the French or Germans. We stay on the side and are not committed, yet think (somewhat arrogantly) that we can steer the EU to suit us. I find their whole European policy wishy-washy and coupled to the fact that there are such divisions amongst the party on what direction to go in, it is no real surprise that it is a complete mess and mish mash of compromises.

Firstly, your plane analogy. We have a choice as whether to buy a ticket and board the plane. That is above and beyond your belief that the pilot has a certain sense of self-preservation. But going to your question about entrusting such an important decision to the general public, why not? Or rather, why have elections for anything in the first place? Let's just get the House of Lords back and get rid of the Lower House.

If you have 5 players sent off, doesn't that void the game?

Hamster - it's not tosh. Go get a suit made from a proper tailor in Saville Row and see what their facial expression is like when you ask for loops in your trousers. No doubt some tat like Armani has belt loops, but I wouldn't consider that a proper suit, just an over expensive off the peg one. One is supposed to wear braces. But not to get diverted from the OP, I have to agree that NA and people such a Wenger do look so much better in suits rather than shorts. I wonder whether it is done in any small way to give an air of authority to the players

I must disagree a bit (if I might be a bit retentive!). You say it is a smart suit, but he wears a belt with it. You should never wear a belt with a suit, and "smart ones" don't have belt loops. HTH.

Maybe but I wonder if they would be as animated. And there are some really tasty birds there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMTktrNz_LI Saw a bit on the news this morning......After being ordered to play 2 games behind closed doors, fernebache came to an arrangement to allow only women and kids in. Apparently they gave out some free tickets, but still got just shy of 42,000 who seemed to give it a good go. Wonder how many would turn up for a UK team if that was the condition and whether they would go for it with the same vigour. Impressive.

Out of interest, and no doubt it has been mentioned somewhere in the last 100 pages or so!!!, how much did they actually stump up to buy the club, if anything?

I spoke to RL about this and recall that he said that it would only happen if the supporters had a 10% representation. As that was never going to happen, a fan on the board was never going to happen.

Wouldn't blame him for wanting to go. All players would regret not signing for a Prem team. We might get there, but despite the good start, it is a hard league to win. If he didn't go then he would regret it for the rest of his life, if playing for us and for some reason we did not get promoted.

I am surprised that it is £2.6m. Given the cost of housing for a start, I would have expected it to be more.

Isn't the optimum point on the Laffer Curve about 20-25%? As it is, those that say that the super rich don't pay enough tax and that it is all unfair might want to consider the figures. At present the top 1% of earners pay 25.7% of all income tax (compared to 11% in 1978). Isn't that fair? I think that sometimes there is a little bit of jealousy involved.

They can't sort out those sub £2500 as you can't make the decision as who is worthy of being paid 100% as opposed 20%. That is unless, I suppose, all the other creditors agree to it. Paying off the small ones would lead to a precedence being set and then HMRC might insist on being paid in full as well. Small creditors are going to have to suck the 20% like everyone else. I wonder when the offer of full repayment was made - was it pre or post the CVA vote?

I can. You become a professional football player, you make certain sacrifices in life. But as others have said, no doubt there is another time and place for that discussion. Wishing DS a full and speedy recovery. Whether he was being obnoxious or not, does not give anyone the right to beat him up and possibly stomp his head into the pavement.