Gypsy Hack

That card is actually full of player-typifying innings and figures, in addition to poor old Ramps. The best one is Andrew Hudson's 27-ball first innings duck, although mentions deserved to Clive Eksteen's 52 wicketless second innings overs, Robin Smith getting in and getting out twice, Graeme Hick's two failures under pressure and, of course, the heroics of Atherton and Russell.

Broadly agree with this, but the way they do it now made Gower's advert for the highlights package much funnier than for your method: "If you like watching Graeme Smith bat, you won't want to miss the highlights of todays play..."

Ennis would get my vote, closely followed by Cavendish, Tweddle and Strauss. All ten candidates are pretty good though.

I'm glad you did. It's a very important issue. I can't argue with that either. If you've got figures I'd like to see them. Genuinely. According to the Home Office: From here. (page 15 of the report). I'm not saying your necessarily wrong, just that it's notoriously difficult to know.

Not really. They didn't start the argument, and their comments relate to a different thing. The posters I quoted use the story about sex traffickers from Eastern Europe and a single female victim to attack all Eastern Europeans with the same brush. (Classy!) The posters you talk about point out that British people who use trafficked girls for sex are just as complicit, and that historically we've been involved in similar things. Not attacking all British people, but defending the majority of good people from Eastern Europe. Because the first group of posters decided to make this an issue about race and immigration, rather than about the tragedy of trafficked women used in prostitution. I don't think anyone denies that trafficking gangs by and large are dominated by (not exclusively made up of) nationalities from the countries of origin, be they countries in Eastern Europe, China, South East Asia or South America. But they cannot operate without a market. All aspects of this trade need to be cracked down on, and the victims need to be able to access support. I think that attitude is much more helpful than simply saying 'bloody Slovakians'. Because it actually makes a positive difference.

R.A.N.D, the constant incrongruity between what you have above and below your signature line in every post you make never fails to crack me up. Regardless, if you and the rest of your mob of self-proclaimed Voice-of-Britons ever want to show us that your righteous outrage extends beyond slagging off foreigners and towards actually doing something to help girls like this, your assistance will be most welcome. Or are the 'human rights brigade' going to have to do it ourselves, again? Because it makes it very hard to believe that you actually have genuine compassion for this girl when you never actually do more than carp about nasty immigints from the sidelines.

In your own little world, maybe. In reality, where the world's major scientific institutions live, the science still remains representative of the field. If you want to show me where it has been debunked please feel free to point me to a similarly exhaustive list of papers demonstrating this to be the case. I'm not aware of any arguments connecting solar eruptions to the current period of climate change in the lower atmosphere or the surface. First of all, let's be clear. There is numerous data demonstrating that the sun had very little to do with warming in the current period, since 1970. Whilst 2000 onwards has been the hottest decade in recorded history and the long term trend still shows warming, the short-term variability of climate makes it inevitable that the odd period will be more level. The current levelling off of GMST most likely is a result of minimal solar activity and other localised events masking the anthropogenic signal. This is neither unusual nor unexpected, nor was the fact that climate inactivists will jump on any minor period where temperature records are not being broken year on year. Only in so far as there is little evidence for a single global MWP rather than a collection of regional MWPs, that all proxy evidence suggests it wasn't warmer than now, and even if neither of those statements were the case, it wouldn't make a difference to the case that there is an anthropogenic signal on current warming. Your subsequent statements on CO2 - which aside from scientific innacuracies display some pretty serious logical fallacies - have pretty much demonstrated you have no interest in seriously understanding the science, preferring instead to misrepresent and rely on people's impressionistic responses. For anyone serious about wanting to know the evidence for a CO2 signal in warming and to understand how simplistic convert's counter-arguments are on the subject, this is an excellent summary. Now carry on, but I've had to miss the football today because I'm staying home to do work (call it GCSE coursework, if it'll make you happy ). Which means I'd better do that work, and I'm not gonna get further distracted by wasting my time any more with this tempest in a teacup.

All the evidence from that post - from your reference to global cooling to your spouting about sunspots to your dismissal of statistics suggests doing so would be a complete waste of time. But what the hell. Read it, peruse the references, get back to me with what you've learnt. And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots. Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!

I'm trying really hard to find an alternative explanation for this, but one doesn't come to mind. "Evidently false"? The original claim was that global warming about politics, not science. There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature to support that claim. Certain papers sneak through which purport to challenge a single facet of the evidence (which is then inevitably blown out of all proportion). My claim stands, and it's a massive stretch to try and argue otherwise. Fair point, it was a reference to where the emails were hacked from. And, the thread title said "No Evidence for Global Warming", which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the OP (the hacking and release of emails of a small group of scientists). Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post wasn't all directed as a response to you specifically. Not until I know more about the context, sorry. Refusing to release what you are required to do so under an FoI request is wrong and unethical, that's as far as I'll go. Now, provide evidence that scientists colluded to "modify" data, please? I mean beyond what is standard, open and well accepted practice.

About what? Seeing as they didn't have the power of god over what went in or was left out of the IPCC report, it's clearly an argument that they're going to make rather than an action they're going to take. It's not for them to "redefine" anything, but peer-review is the first BS filter, not the only one. Stuff slips through, and tends to be weeded out by other means. Absolutely no underhand practice has been exposed here. All that has been shown is that a few scientists at ONE institution are - shock, horror - human, and get a little narked off at people deliberately trying to muddy the waters and obfuscate the science. This will die down like the last "final nail in the coffin of AGW", and the one before that, and the one before that. Any wonder why all but a small number of dedicated people have ceased to bother debunking this stuff? I used to visit Anthony Watts site, for example, because I like giving people a chance, but there is only so much spectacular scientific illiteracy you can take before you give up. Meanwhile, we are still in the middle of a warming trend, we are still in the hottest decade on record and carbon dioxide is still well established as the cause. If the context-free publishing of illegally hacked emails from a SINGLE institution is the best evidence against this, then it's pretty damn robust.

"Science" in this case being "blog science", presumably. Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature to support that statement you just made. At the moment, I personally am doing "science". Can't speak for the rest, but I'm guessing like me they're just tired of repeating the same old basic physics and statistics lessons to the same old idiots over and over again. You guys are an irrelevence. Who am I to spoil your little fun?

I'm always suspicious about the accuracy of articles which are short on specifics and long on giving voice to muppets like Matthew Elliot. If someone can tell me an honest, objective difference between these two state of affairs: then I might listen to you. As it is, it's the kind of low-on-fact tripe that you expect from a Telegraph journalist like Robert Watts.

Rubbish! I went through the whole video waiting to see my house and nothing! (only kidding, i like it)

No. We are on course for gangs of idiots like that here if people continue to hint about how violence against an immigrant population is 'inevitable' if we don't immediately toughen our restrictions on immigration. It's a dog whistle to certain potentially violent racists in our society that their actions can be seen as a natural result of immigration, rather than as the sociopathic nastiness that they are. We used to be FAR FAR worse towards immigrants in this country than we are now, thank christ, despite the fact that there were far far fewer than there are now. What does that tell you? The rate of violence against an immigrant population is not proportional to the number of immigrants, but rather to the attitudes of the dominant indiginous population. Enoch Powell was not right, he made a self-fulfilling prophecy by allowing violent racists to claim themselves as victims. Don't make the same mistake.

It's about twice that really, isn't it? You need a satellite or cable package in the first place. And you're tied to a contract, which isn't feasible for a lot of people. I've got it now because my housemate's bought it and is paying the bill in his name, otherwise I wouldn't have a chance. Basically, if someone was to get Sky with Sports just for the Ashes, they pay a minimum of £360. It's not small change for one event. Anyway, there's a general agreement that some events are of such national agreement they should be shown free-to-air. The argument is whether The Ashes is one of them.

I had five pints before going to see The Two Towers. Walked out of that film about seven times.

My calender runs out at the end of next month. See ya in hell, y'all.

Nah I wasn't arguing with your general point, completely agree in fact. Missed out on the Ashes this year, apart from the brief time I spent in Australia with my parents. At least you'll have plenty of time to get a new box for 2017. The analogue signal will be off by then anyway, won't it?

Uh... there wouldn't be anything to stop Sky from bidding. They could easily - shock, horror - provide the event on a freeview channel. Who watches Sky 3 anyway? Seriously, if Sky are happy to operate Pay-per-View for things like the Haye fight, they shouldn't moan about going the other way once in a while.

I've been to non-segretated games for Conference football before (once at Donny and once in Stalybridge) as a schoolboy and it was a great laugh. Admittedly, Stalybridge Celtic haven't got much of a reputation as a firm, but I reckon it's worth trying out for the odd game higher up the leagues. People will surprise you. If it doesn't work, Forest will stop it, but fair play to them for trying.

Your suspicions are wrong. Sorry. http://mysun.co.uk/go/discussions/community I trust the public will afford The Sun the same level of humility and perspective The Sun afforded Gordon Brown. Oh, wait...

I haven't the foggiest how The Sun operates its online content, but it would strike me as inefficient to say the least if pieces were electronically submitted by a journalist and then re-transcribed from scratch by a typesetter. In this case particularly, it was only a website snippet rather than an article and probably didn't get even a cursory check. Whoever made the mistake (and there wasn't anyones name under it), it's an issue of collective responsibility for The Sun.

Can you believe it??? Hanging's too good for them?????!!!!????!1111! Jacqui 'Jones'. I wonder if the Sun 'journalist' who wrote that shares Gordon Brown's eyesight problems, or if s/he just found that, in the rush to use a mothers grief to score cheap political points, there's rarely enough time for simple proofreading. Whatever the truth, this yet again illustrates that the surest way to end up with egg on your face is to make a massive thing about someone else's spelling, grammar or handwriting.

That's great. Now if they could admit their faults and errors to the extent that people in their care don't die because of their idoicy, they may just acquire greater respect.

To be fair, she was.