Is that factual? And given that it's suggested on the website that he's is still drawing a tidy pension, does that seem obvious to a layman that he could claim poverty as a defence. I'd suggest a solicitor would know the ins and outs of this - which is why they can charge what they do. Also, it's probably also likely that the law states you can't borrow more than you can realistically afford to pay back. Hence why he had to his friend to help. Which is where I came in originally: Don't lend money to your mates.

I'm not expert either but, making the obvious assumption that there would naturally be communications prior to any bankrupcy decision, here's a hypothetical scenario: Borrower: Hi I can't pay back the £10,000 I loaned from you, would you take a cheque for £5.34 and half a tube of toothpaste? Lender: No, I'll have the £10,000 - thanks all the same. Borrower: Well, here's the thing. It's the £5.34 and the toothpaste - or nothing. Lender: I'll see you in court. At this point the borrower will either get, or direct an existing solicitor involved. I fully agree with Jock though, and given your thumbs up, assume you are playing devil's advocate.

I'm guessing because solicitors know how best to work the system how the law works so that people can avoid having to pay their bills reduce their liabilities. By the sounds of things the process works!

Stop being deliberately obtuse, JAL. If the goal is disallowed for offside play restarts with a free kick where the offside occurred - like it would have if the ref had originally seen it. If a player punches the ball into the net play restarts with a free kick (funnily enough) AGAINST the player who handled the ball - like it would have if the ref had originally seen it. If the result of the replay is no infringement, the goal stands, and play restarts with a kick off on the centre circle by the team who conceded - guess what - like it would have if the ref had originally seen it. As I said, play would only be stopped in the event of a goal - which automatically causes a stoppage anyway.

How do you restart a disallowed goal now? Free kick for the infringement. Nothing changes in the application of the laws of the game, JAL, you just give the ref(s) an opportunity to make the right decision by giving them the angles they couldn't see. It makes no sense for everyone watching to see exactly what happened and not being able to share it with the most important decision maker on the pitch.

I agree. I'd also include putting the ball in the net with your hand. The technology should be used to assist the referee not replace them. Also let's not forget, the 4th official is always a qualified referee anyway so they should be more than competent to give the decision after reviewing an incident - and quickly relay to the ref. They're already mic'd anyway. I can't help feeling that it won't happen because being able to ignore an incident may suit some people but, if it's all about fair play and respect, there should be no problem.

JAL, you stop play after a goal has been scored - IF there is a perceived infringement. It's done in many other sports. There might be a glut of appeals to start with but they will settle down. After all the only stat that counts is the number of goals so there's little point in stopping play otherwise. (Things which are missed like the Balotelli incident can continue to be reviewed after the game has finished). We already have "phases of play" for offsides and the ref can allow play to continue so there should be no need to rewind for anything more than 30 seconds maximum. It should be the referee who asks for a second opinion from the fourth official - and only after the captain makes a request. It might even finally be a way to bring back respect into football. The issue is that refs don't always see incidents so rather than people caning them, why not help them? And it's no good trying to pretend that top level competition isn't virtually a different sport to lower leagues already because it is. I don't recall there being a snickometer or hawkeye in lower level cricket or rugby matches and that seems to manage without imploding.

Gareth Gates - Spirit in the Sky

If he says he saw it and was happy with the challenge, he should never be allowed to referee a game again - even at amateur level. That was a nasty foul that could have ended a fellow player's career.

Presumably he didn't see it - there were two players in his way (not sure about the lino though). I expect Liabiliti will be dealt with tomorrow.

Pretty shocking stuff - assuming the "drunken" threats and taunts are all true - although I can't quite understand waiting until now to go public with the details. It doesn't sound like they are going to get their money back. However, if someone goes bankrupt then they are going to leave a trail of bitter creditors in their wake. Just goes to show you should never lend money to your friends.

Urban Cookie Collective - Feels Like Heaven (P.S. You did that on purpose, didn't you Colin!)

Meh? Any who... Van Morrison - Brown Eyed Girl

Paul Scholes is untouchable. If he receives any kind of ban, he'll just retire again. Nothing to lose.

Ryan Adams - Lucky Now

The shock of the lightening - Oasis

Temple of the Dog - Hunger Strike

Nowt wrong with that Al. Some of the messages are very moving indeed.

Probably what John Newsham is looking for when he orders his team to search women and children outside the Darwen end. Can you imagine what would have gone off if those stewards had tried to remove the banner? Incredible scenes.

http://www.dearphotograph.com A very nice site indeed.

The the - Infected

Colin has made the assumption that (as per the rule) the same word can't be used twice in a row - which has been broken many times already. Feargal Sharkey - A Good Heart

Over & Over - Turin Brakes

I must admit the hairs on the back of the neck went up when they re-did this... It was a bit like handing over a part of my childhood to my kids. Waka waka! And if you are anything like me, I challenge you not to get a lump in your throat watching this...