Eames

What on earth is the benefit of the phone with a flexible display?

The Matrix

I've got more chance of shagging Scarlett Johansen in the centre circle at Villa Park whilst the entire cast of Glee cheers on from the sidelines than Philippe Coutinho has of ever signing for Aston Villa.

Clive Owen

Magaluf - where Geordies go to widen the gene pool. Magaluf - where Geordies go to widen the gene pool.

Open a mutual Dropbox account - upload it and let her download it at her end? Upload it to FB with very limited permissions?

Sorry... But 90mins of that would bore me silly.

Pete and drat make excellent points. It's too simple to boil this debate down to Benefits BAD, Allowances GOOD. Perhaps the issue the the way that all benefits/allowances are targeted. A truely fair system would work with the biggest benefits (both cash and percentage terms) going to the least well off, with those who earn most receiving neither. But then you get into tax rates and the whole thing goes silly.

Daniel Craig compared to Nyqvist isn't even close. Again, more to do with the characters in the book than the actors. Nyqvist just isn't anywhere near how Blomkvist should be. The film as a whole is just better, imo. It's got a better director, higher production values and a better cast. Whilst none of that SHOULD always matter, in this case it does. The film handles the plot a lot better as a result, and the tension and character devlopment unfolds way better in the Hollywood version. it's far from a perfect film, and it has annoying things, like the whole some people having Swedish accents and some people not, or the slight tweaking of the ending (although I don't think that added or took anything away from the film, just served to shorten an already long film without hurting the story) But I don't see it as a remake of the Swedish version. Rather a "reimagining" of the book. It's a different film based on the same book, rather than a new film based on the old film... if that makes sense. If the Hollywood version had come out first, I don't think there would even be a debate. But because the Swedish was the original and it's in foreign, I think people think it's better. For me Craig didn't really represent Blomqvist well at all. The bloke is a journalist - to have James Bond knobbing about was huge miscasting IMO. Rapace as Lisbeth, whilst I agree didn't totally capture the character in the book gave a better performance overall than Mara. I will also conceede that the Fincher version is slicker and has been shot better.

Speak to your insurer.....explain her point of view and the speed of the accident... tell them that the notion of personal injury is or damage is bollocks (if it is/was) and that you will not accept any settlement that is detrimental to your record.

Thats your opinion... which I respect. However mine is the total opposite of yours.

What is the damage they are claiming for. How fast was she travelling when she knocked into the car? Someone's spied a Personal Injury opportunity. Stick to her story.... when the forms come through there is a box saying something like "Are you prepared to go to Court over this" make sure you say yes. Possibly make an appointment with a solicitor

Can I ask why you think that. I can't see the point in the Daniel Craig remake other than the fact that people won't watch subtitled films. It was a shot for shot copy of the original that added nothing - like the US remake of Let the Right One In. Totally pointless. Oh and Noomi Rapace > Rooney Mara.

No. It really doesn't.

Superb.

This may come as a surpise to some but - Bromsgrove you're views are pretty repellant.

I've seen the picture now too.... clearly thats just whats been swept up post crash. The parcel shelf is neatly stacked on top and all. Also aren't the IPCC routinely asked to look at any incident where a member of the public is killed in an incident involving plod. I would also repeat the assertion that the one responsible is the bloke driving the car who should have stopped. To be fair - I'm sure the truth of the matter lies somewhere between our povs.

I can't see any reference to high speed in the article though BOF...... other than that yes I agree.... knobbing past schools or whatever at 70 isn't a good plan, but there is no information about how fast the cars were going, what distance the plod were away from the car they were chasing. Just strikes me as best to give PC49 the benefit of the doubt unless otherwise stated. (As naive as this may be)

Careful - Your husband might be giving you a slap later....

Not sure if this is a dig at the Police or not BOF. The only person responsible for the crash is the arsehole who hadn't stopped.

Did he sound Ginger and Scottish - with an ISP in the Nottingham area?

Strange comment - all I've said is its a good idea - but implemented badly.

I second Ingram's cover idea. My Nexus 7 is happily clad in rubber. As for his pouch....... a gentleman never tells.

None. Too much admin that the already **** HMRC couldn't handle.

Why are we all typing in BOLD? Anyway - IMO sensible policy - families on 50k+ dont really need Child Benefit - but poor execution. Should be based on household income not individual as others have said.