ender4

at what point does someone count as fat? what about obese? i would guess anything above 34 is fat, and anything above 38 is obese? by the way, i don't actually know, so apologies if i offend anyone.

take the money. its not like their gonna miss a few hundred quid, plus its their mistake not yours. you asked for £50, they give £100, what you supposed to do?

well the target is the goal, and you've hit part of the goal structure, therefore its kinda on target, but didn't go in.

good question. i'm not sure, maybe it has its own category, so doesn't go into on or off target.

It probably won't happen but when your team is only 5 points off the leaders and are in fantastic form...why the hell not go for it? If we get a few players in, there is no reason to rule out a title challenge. We are going for it, and we might have a title challenge. no-one is ruling that out. But the question is where will we finish? We might be only 5 points of the top with 3 games to go, but i think most realistic people don't think we will FINISH 1st.

i hope the 7% of people who have put us as finishing champions are joking.... if you really believe that we will finish champions, then there are going to be some disappointed people on Villatalk in May. i voted 4th, but actually have changed my mind - i think we will probably finish 5th, but am hoping we can squeeze into 4th place.

great sentence. totally agree. look at us under Doug Ellis with no money, and look at us now with Randy Lerner 8)

i think its more to do with where he feels he is in the poll. Does he feel comfortable with his income/savings/debt ratio? has he got enough savings & income in his mind to not worry/care about the economic situation? or does he feel that he is struggling in spite of having savings? its all in the eye of the beholder, where an individual thinks he fits in the poll, rather than an mathematical exercise.

:shock: holy f**k, now that is substantial!!!! i was thinking of substantial as something like £30k in savings & investments. though i suppose its whatever the individual thinks is substantial to them, and their cost of living. not necessarily. debt free with £5k savings - could mean just about surviving on each months income, and having to scrimp & cut-back to stay debt free... whereas £300k mortgage can mean that you've got enough income coming in to comfortably pay the monthly payments, and you've still got enough to spend freely, and add to your £60k savings if you wish. i'd rather be in the second scenario, even though as an accounting exercise it might sounds worse.

it'll be hard for Villa to catch Liverpool now... they are 7 points ahead with 18 games to go. we'd need a storming second half of a season, or they'd need a pretty good collapse. I think it'll be: 1) Man Utd 2) Chelsea 3) Liverpool

I've always wondered.. if a player gets seriously injured.. then does insurance kick in to pay the wages? or is it a tough luck for the club? what about in Saha's case where he has lots of little injuries?

thats true - i forgot he was free. better to have him to play a few games than not to have him at all.

same here!! not quite sure how i got to this situation!

i hope not, and i don't think they will. Currently Liverpool are playing the best they have played for 10-20 years, whilst Man Utd & Chelsea are playing their worst for a couple of seasons. Once Man Utd & Chelsea get into gear, they will blast Liverpool out of the water. I've actually suprised myself that i want Chelsea or Man utd to win the title, i can't bear the thought of Liverpool winning it.

i disagree. i think Arteta has still been class this season, maybe not quite as good as last season, but still a very good season so far, and one of Everton's best players. In fantasy football, he's around the 5th highest midfielder.... so he must be doing something right?

no. unless you are having trouble keeping up with the monthly payments.

With the economy the way it is, i was wondering how everyone is doing with their personal finances? Vote anonymously, or explain further below....

i assumed it meant The Daily Mail & The Sun - ie: papers that rant over-the-top about certain issues.

well, you have to start somewhere.... and i would hope the government has more spine than to just start with the one highlighted in newspapers. Hopefully, they have analysed & either picked those issues that are most important, or that are easy to solve.

i dunno.... wish i did. - Educate the kids properly so that they don't think having a baby is a career choice? - give better s3x education, rather than just handing out condoms & the pills? - make parents responsible for their teenage kids? - more discipline in schools? - teach more about responsibilities rather than about rights? - i believe that rights only come after responsibility, so maybe enshrine that in law

are you a parent ? no. do you have kids in child care ? no. do you knwo how much it costs ? not really, but i guess its not cheap. or do you get your views about single parents from the hate papers ? i try not to form my views from just one source, but yes newspapers will influence me slightly. do you have proof of this ? not really. mass numbers doing it ? i guess not lots, but enough to try & stop it happening. a few always will, a few will illegally drive fast or not pay their taxes or work in the black economy, shall we crack down on them because the same hate papers hate speed cameras eh ? yes, crack down on all forms of scamming the system. i guess its not one issue, the whole benefit system probably needs looking at from top to bottom. of course, it needs to be fully thought out, fair & handled properly.. which is why i'm sure it will be a government failure!

this has gone way off topic onto a debate about benefits... anyone got any good economic news? and for me house prices falling is a GOOD thing

Why? So a single mom should have less rights? - A wrong move IMO a single mum shouldn't have any more rights than a married couple. but its more the cutting of housing benefit that i agree with, whether they are single mums or not. i don't know the ins & outs of the welfare system, but i just think that ALL benefits should have a time period... you should be able to keep on claiming for ever.... a year or two of continious benefits is more than enough.

or to turn it around the other way, what do you do with the teenage mums who got pregnant because they wanted a council flat or their mates were getting pregnant, and they have no intention of working now or ever. i don't know what we do in either case... but maybe this is a step in the right direction.... even if all the mums have to do is go & pick litter, at least they are doing something to earn their benefits.

I think the proposals for housing benefit (which was actually reformed just 8 months ago) are separate to the issue of lone parents working. :winkold: It is a reform for housing benefit (now the LHA anyway) and also a reform for benefits for lone parents. ah well, i agree with both of them. i've thought for ages now that less money should be spent on benefits in total, and they should benefit those people who deserve them the most. Priority should be: people who have worked but are made redundant/can't find a job families rather than single mums housing benefit should only be a short-term stop-gap rather than a long-term solution. in one way or another, the government is going to have to try & cut benefit spend, otherwise the country is going to be bankrupt soon.