Saintandy666

The land issue with biofuels is a good con; but not terminal. There is enough space for everything (especially with more adoption of GM crops), although I don't think anyone is suggesting using biofuels on their own - it's better to diversify. And I haven't heard that about wind farms, and it appears to be false - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy. The main problem that many cite to do with wind farms is their effect of bird wildlife in the area.

I have to agree with CB Fry, rather than Matthew Le God. I think once we get a certain way into this competition we might as well give it a good go regardless of the opposition. That means reducing risk which means playing some more first team regulars.

I'm not sure. The tories are effectively facing a two pronged attack if they want to form a majority, and to do that they will need to increase their vote share. Problem is, Lib Dems will go to Labour more than the Tories and some Tories will go to UKIP squeezing their vote. The Lib Dems also are very good at hanging on where they are already in, so I expect to see 30+ Liberal Democrats in parliament next year. I can't see a conservative majority government at the moment.

Obviously those three inferred energy types are part of the solution (although there are some very valid ecological concerns regarding tidal and wind), but there are also biofuels, geothermal and if we can get nuclear fusion down - which we will - that will effectively mean unlimited clean energy. The fact of the matter is we can't keep polluting the earth as we are or one day in the future we'll find we won't have any need for energy anymore because we're all long gone. Finding clean sustainable energy is the most pressing problem facing mankind; especially if we intend to remain around in the kind of numbers we have at the moment.

So you'd want to put a little bit extra risk into our chances of winning a hypothetical semi-final?

At what point in this competition do we stop playing the B side?

To really get cheap energy, we need to complete the green transition. Until then, everything else is simply delay.

Not so much his finishing as just getting the shot on, sometimes he just does one more little flick or piece of skill than is necessary. Or just tries to do something to create that little bit of space when really he should just shoot straight away.

If he has a good season, he has a very good chance of squeezing his way onto the plane for Brazil - if we qualify of course. In fact, perhaps a better chance than Lambert who I fear may begin to fade soon or slowly become a supersub as opposed to a starter, though people might disagree with that.

I really never understand why people make sweeping statements about other teams/players as 'crap' etc based on one game.

I thought Osvaldo looked very good today. Plenty of skill, and I feel as if many goals are not far off.

I would not say that Lambert is 'sh*t', more just anonymous today.

Who is captain now that Lallana is off?

Bit of a lacking comment in my opinion. Experience of a certain type, i.e the 'real world' - whatever that is - doesn't necessarily mean you are any better equipped or not to lead and/or come up with solutions to problems. I think that sometimes a person removed from a situation who sits down and reads/studies all the facts and angles can come up with a better answer. And in government these angles involve big teams working together anyways. However, I'm yet to be convinced by Miliband as he seems to have no real policy direction at all.

From reading the article it seems like his real aim is actually top 10 which is what I think everyone agrees with. He says he dreams of the title, but what player wouldn't?

Northern hemisphere bias is something we are all guilty about. However, Duckhunter has it dead on. Nothing wrong with a winter world cup or a middle east world cup, but A. that wasn't made clear in the bidding process and B. the whole bid has a lot of fishiness about it.

I would never ever want the government to dictate what someone can or can't wear, so I'd be deeply uncomfortable with any ban. That doesn't mean I approve of veils however, whatever their theological justification. However, we must respect peoples' right to choose. Despite this I still believe there are certain situations and places where veils and face covering simply is not practical and could be detrimental to others which is were the line has to be drawn. One example of this for example is in a court where it is vital that the witnesses face can be seen or in a school where it is vital to be 100% who is in the room/face contact is important in learning.

You might as well join Mensa. I expect there are quite a lot of benefits you can access if you are a member! Plus you can brag more.

I think the best way to fix this kind of stuff is for the general public to change their attitude to trials and fully appreciate 'innocent until proven guilty'. Most of all, this means that certain elements of the press need to be more sensible in their reporting of legal proceedings. This doesn't mean I am entirely blaming the press because press standards feed off public wants as well. As for the anonymity idea, it doesn't sit well with me. Does this effectively mean that no details of a trial bar the fact that a trial is taking place will be in the public sphere? How can we then trust the system to do its job properly? I would not be against a proposal of anonymity until charged however, presuming police are keeping to usual high standards of evidence. Minty, perhaps you can expand on this idea in saying what exactly you'd want to be in the public domain and what wouldn't be in the public domain. Would all trial info bar names be available? And perhaps Alpine has a decent point re: innocent of lack of evidence for many cases. It would be interesting to see what proportion of cases (where it is lack of evidence) where the prosecution witnesses are then successfully prosecuted for perjury.

It's been a really good game for him, but we are playing Moldova, whom with the greatest respect have nowhere near the quality of the England team. Tougher tests ahead for Lambert in his England career.

Loads of empty seats in Wembley.

I don't really think what the 'country needs' is a good argument as its irrelevant to any problems teachers are having. What does matter is the validity of the reason to strike.

Boric, Clyne, Lovren, Fonte, Shaw, Lallana, Schiederlin, Wanyama, Ramirez, Osvaldo, Lambert. Pretty straight forward for most positions. Perhaps a bit of competition for Fonte from Yoshida. Rodriguez to rotate with Lambert?

You think Manchester United will have no Champions league? That would be a disaster for them. The Glazier debt refinancing seems to rely on continued success. I'm slightly leaning for Moyes to get it together and finish in the top 3 for an automatic poisiton.

Honestly can not pick the top four from Man City, Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal. All seem to have top teams that can beat all the rest in the league, and seem quite a bit ahead of the rest. Perhaps this thread will look silly come the end of the season, but I'm honestly unsure though I tend to think Tottenham will miss out. Is it sustainable to have 6 teams on champions league budgeting?