Search the Community

This just in.... The highway's crammed with broken heroes on a last chance power-drive [YOUTUBE]ggWZUm1ETNo[/YOUTUBE] So, best allow a few extra minutes for your journey if you're heading that way.

anyone else like him? I thought he was brilliant,my favourite things are the 80s programmes where he's either climbing up a huge chimney,no harnesses or anything or bringing it down. plus he talked a lot of sense,very politically incorrect and had a lot of common sense. health and safety would have a heart attack nowadays, no chance Id even climb the first ladder!!! [YOUTUBE]6W_7uIapoHc&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]CFuyE_VBeO8[/YOUTUBE] Bedtime with Samuel L. Jackson. Enjoy.

You can't keep a good artist down for long: Photo Album - Imgur je me lance dans la drague online. Forum Bla Bla Light - page 3 Talent will out..

If You Watch it Backwards

Not sure if this has been posted before, but thought fuck it. http://www.politesociety.com/binladenliquors_ol10%5B1%5D.swf

Some bird on Facebook commenting on how a fight just broke out in one where she's eating tonight got me thinking about it. I like Nandos, I like chicken more than Evel Knievel, but they really do attract the dregs. What is it about them? They've somehow become the Yates's Wine Lodge of eateries.

New series on Channel 4, yet another re-imagining of the Arthurian legends. 15 minutes in and some quality tits and ass on show.

The 3G coverage mast has been down for more that a week now. I rang to complain yesterday as i cant gert the internet on my iphone, and they knocked 20qiud off my bill. Give it a go!!!

Are they a chicken's Period?

Strontium Dog, I challenge you to a game of Twenty Questions. I'm sure you know the rules but just to be clear... I have thought of something and pm'd it's identity to Moglet for safe keeping. You can ask me twenty questions to work out what it is. Questions must be in a format that requires a yes/no answer. For example "Is it yellow?" qualifies but "What colour is it?" doesn't. If you post an inadmissable question you forfeit that go. "Animal, vegetable or mineral?" is an exception of course. Answers will not necessarily be yes or no. If you ask "Is it green?" and the item is an apple I'll answer "Sometimes". If the item is a loaf of bread I'll answer "No" even though mouldy bread might be green. In other words, I won't act the langer and try to mislead you. The general public are free to make suggestions if they want but I will only answer questions posted by you. Please number your questions as you go so we can keep track. Unnumbered questions will be treated as general thread banter and are not counted. If I fail to answer twenty questions you should win by default. However if I fail to answer because you fail to ask you should lose so what I propose is this: We have 28 days to complete this and even allowing for different times online we should get at least one question answered per day. I should be answering within twelve hours and your next question should then be posted within twelve hours. If we don't get through twenty questions and answers we add up the excess hours or parts of hours and whoever wasted the most time loses. So if you ask a question at 8:00 am on Monday and I don't answer untill 9:05 pm Monday that's two hours debited against me. If you post the follow up question before 9:05am on Tuesday you do not get credited against future or previous heel-dragging. In the event of this rule coming into play you may still submit one guess before the deadline and win even if you have wasted more time than me. If either of us require life saving surgery or something and can't be online for a period of more than twelve hours the clock can be stopped provided we give notice. To do this you must post "STOP THE LIGHTS!" and specify the time period required. We can stop the clock for no more than a total of 96 hours each. You have three guesses. If you think you have it worked out before the end you may guess at any stage but if you are wrong you lose one of your three guesses. Answer must be specific, ie if it's an apple then "fruit" is not specific enough. In the event of a disputed outcome I will post a 24 hour fast poll and let the GF decide. If the poll is inconclusive I'll see you at Otterspool, pistols at dawn on June 10th. Time starts when you post your first question. Good luck.

Just had a mess round with it now and it's decent, not quite as addictive as the Pacman one but still a nice distraction.

Hello, you all look wonderful today, Anyone used this before ? Got to learn it for a Uni assignment and its annoying me. Any help will be reciprocated with some beautiful reppage* *Subject to Availability.

BP suffered an oil leak in the Dorset countryside late last year, causing such concern that its biggest onshore field in Western Europe has been shut down for the past two months. The oil giant launched a review of all its pipelines at the Wytch Farm site following the incident – less than a year since its Gulf of Mexico oil leak put the company's health and safety record under scrutiny. Wytch Farm has not been producing its 25,000 barrels per day since November and the pipeline where the leak was discovered has been undergoing maintenance ever since. Robots have been sent down into all its pipes at the site to check their condition. BP did not release any public statements at the time of the leak but on Wednesday told The Telegraph that the move to shut down the field was due to "extreme caution" because of the US spill. "Because of what happened last year, anything that looks like there could be a pipeline integrity issue means we are being extra careful," a BP spokesman said. "It was noticed when somebody observed a small amount of oil, from a pipeline encased in concrete and sand, had risen to the surface of the sand. "We've replaced that section of pipe and as a precaution we've been inspecting all the key pipelines down there." Old and damaged pipelines have been the source of several leaks from BP's assets in Alaska, including the serious Prudhoe Bay spill in 2006. The Aleyska pipeline, which is half-owned by BP, sprung a leak last month, shutting down production from the North Slopes and pushing up the price of oil by almost $2 per barrel. The Dorset leak occurred just before warnings from the Health and Safety Executive in December about corrosion. BP is not the only company to see recent corrosion of its UK assets. Royal Dutch Shell launched an inquiry this month after a piece of platform fell into the North Sea. It shut down the Brent Bravo platform immediately, as well as three others as a precautionary measure. Nobody was injured nor was there any danger of a spill. The HSE told companies they had become so focused on preventing major offshore incidents that they are "neglecting general maintenance" of their oil and gas installations. The regulator found only one-in-30 of Britain's North Sea oil platforms was in a good condition when inspected. Asked about the Wytch Farm incident, a spokesman for the safety regulator said: "HSE is aware of the shutdown as such closure of a pipeline for 24 hours or more is reportable." BP is expected to submit a report to the regulator, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change said it was monitoring the situation. The field is now expected to re-open "within days". The oil giant was subject to an investigation in the North Sea, which found new staff were not trained to "basic safety standards" just six months before its Gulf of Mexico accident.

I've noticed he hasn't fenced any stuff on Fleabay for a while.

Briton feared among 35 dead in suicide bomb attack on Moscow airport - Telegraph At least 35 people were killed, reportedly including one Briton, in a suicide bomb blast at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport on Monday. Russia's Interfax news agency said a Briton was among the dead following Monday's suicide bombing. The names of the victims have not yet been released, and the Foreign Office said that it could not confirm whether any Britons had been killed. Separately, the Ministry of Health and Social Development reported on its website that the list of those receiving hospital treatment included one man from Italy and another from France. The Slovak embassy told the RIA Novosti news agency that the actress Zuzana Fialova was also injured in attack and was receiving treatment at a Moscow hospital. A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We've seen that report. At the moment we are not in a position to confirm anything. We are urgently investigating." Russian officials put the number of casualties at 35, and described it as an "act of terror". Over 130 people were injured in the attacks. Reports on Russian television suggested the bomber shouted, "I'll kill you all!", before detonating the device. "Today at 4:32 pm (1332 GMT) an explosion went off in the international arrivals hall of Domodedovo airport," the Russian investigative committee said in a statement. A British Airways flight from London had arrived in Moscow at 3.45pm, with 165 people on board. A BMI flight with 97 passengers and six crew members landed at the airport at approximately the same time as the bomb was detonated. British Airways operates three flights daily from the airport while BMI operates two flights. Following the incident, the Foreign Office updated its travel advice. It said: "An explosion occurred at Domodedovo airport, Moscow, at approximately 4.30pm local time on Monday January 24. "There are reports that a bomb went off in the international arrivals hall and that over 30 people have been killed. "The airport is currently closed and you should not travel there. We will provide further updates as soon as we are able to." A total of almost 240,000 British nationals entered Russia in 2009. The Foreign Office advice warns of a high threat from terrorism in Russia, with the possibility of indiscriminate attacks. American President Barack Obama called the attack "outrageous" and the UN chief Ban Ki-moon said he was "appalled". "I strongly condemn this outrageous act", Mr Obama said, quoted by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "Any assistance that the government of Russia needs or wants, we certainly stand ready to help," he added. No group has yet taken responsibility for the attack, but dozens of people, writing in Russian, praised the suicide bomber on unofficial Islamist site kavkazcenter.com. Mark Green, a British Airways passenger who had just arrived at the airport, told the BBC he heard the huge explosion as he left the terminal. "Literally, it shook you," he said. "As we were putting the bags in the car a lot of alarms ... were going off and people started flowing out of the terminal, some of whom were covered in blood." "One gentleman had a pair of jeans on that was ripped and his thigh from his groin to his knee was covered in blood," he added. Asked if all the people on his flight would have made it out of the terminal, Mr Green said he would be surprised if passengers on his flight were not affected. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered increased security at all transport hubs in the capital, and cancelled his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he was due to deliver the opening speech on Wednesday. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said: "I am deeply shocked and saddened at today's explosion at Moscow's Domodedovo airport with the loss of many lives. "On behalf of the UK, I send condolences to all those who have lost relatives or been injured. "British officials are in urgent contact with the Russian authorities to establish the facts and to provide consular support to any British nationals who may have been affected." Local media reported the blast may have hit the baggage reclaim area of the international arrivals hall. The airport, which is Moscow's busiest, is around 25 miles south-east of the city centre. Domodedovo is generally regarded as Moscow's most up-to-date airport, but its security procedures have been called into question. In 2004, two suicide bombers were able to board planes at Domodedovo by buying tickets illegally from airport personnel. The bombers blew themselves up in mid-air, killing all 90 people aboard the two flights. Moscow suffered its worst attack in six years in March 2010 when two female suicide bombers from Russia’s volatile Dagestan region set off explosives in the metro, killing 40 people

Collateral Damage - WikiLeaks In The Crosshairs The horrific killing of six people in Arizona, and the wounding of a dozen more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, generated a wave of discussion on the impact of violent political rhetoric. A leading article in The Times commented: "American politics has a strain of mean-spiritedness that, when it connects to disturbed individuals, can have terrible consequences." True enough, although Britain certainly has its own "strain of mean-spiritedness". It is possible to disagree with others "in a reasonable way", The Times observed, without giving "unintended succour to those on the fringes who harbour extreme views and even worse methods". (Leading article, 'A Mean Spirit,' The Times, January 10, 2011) In August 2002, Times journalist Michael Gove – variously, the paper's comment, news, Saturday and assistant editor - wrote: "We have no alternative but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to prevent Saddam completing his drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Massive military force must be deployed to remove Saddam's regime." (Gove, 'We need Bush and not Saddam calling the shots,' The Times, August 28, 2002) Gove suffered no ill effects from this expression of "extreme views and even worse methods" - he is now Secretary of State for Education. In January 2003, also gunning for war, David Aaronovitch wrote in the Guardian: "If I were an Iraqi, living under probably the most violent and repressive regime in the world, I would desire Saddam's demise more than anything else. Or do we suppose that some nations and races cannot somehow cope with freedom?" Again, extremism was given no "unintended succour" – later that year, the judges of the 2003 What the Papers Say awards made Aaronovitch columnist of the year, commenting: "At a time when most left-leaning commentators were opposing the war in Iraq, he took a brave and consistent stand, presenting the case for action in the most coherent and persuasive manner." Speech that incites violence against individuals at home is unacceptable. Speech that incites mass death and destruction against entire nations is met with indifference, and/or high office and awards! In Mediaspeak, the word 'violence' actually refers to crimes committed by the 'bad guys' against the 'good guys', 'us'. 'We' do not commit violence, 'we' deploy 'assets' to 'neutralise' 'targets'. 'We' 'intervene' to bring 'security' and 'humanitarian relief'. Because 'we' don't commit violence, it is fine for 'us' to non-violently kill 'our' enemies. Thus, columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner wrote in the Washington Times last month: "We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him." William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, pleaded: "Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can't we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible?" The net hosts numerous articles with titles like '5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange.' On the BBC website, Matt Frei praised Barack Obama's mollifying response to the Arizona massacre: "The president kept it personal and poignant. He reined in the attack dogs on all sides and called for a more civil, gentle tone. The tragedy has allowed him to play the role of consoler-in-chief with conviction." Perhaps not on all sides. The "consoler-in-chief" had nothing to say about the crosshairs hovering over Julian Assange. Of Wikiblokesphere And Lying Feminist Slags Responding to the killings in the Independent, Joan Smith lamented the state of political debate, recalling "a concept I'm very keen on but haven't heard much in recent years: civility". The abuse is rampant: "Among the online-abuse community, it's beyond question that Julian Assange's accusers are lying feminist slags." There was precious little civility in this ugly distortion. If a minority of bigots do perceive Assange's accusers this way, they have not been contributing to the rational, awesomely well-informed discussions we have seen. John Pilger has commented on the playing of what might be called 'the feminist card' in the WikiLeaks debate. The gambit has form. In December 2007, we found that, over the previous 12 years, the terms 'Taliban' and 'women's rights' had been mentioned in 56 Guardian articles. Of these, 36 had appeared after the September 11, 2001 attacks. As Pilger noted last month in the New Statesman: "The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was supported by leading feminists, especially in the US, where Hillary Clinton and other false tribunes of feminism made the Taliban's treatment of Afghan women the rationale for attacking a stricken country and causing the deaths of at least 20,000 people while giving the Taliban new life." Something similar is happening now, Pilger writes, "as a group of media feminists joins the assault on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks... From the Times to the New Statesman, apparent feminist credence is given to the chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange in Sweden". Some of the worst examples have appeared in the Guardian, one of WikiLeaks' "media partners". Libby Brooks identifies an "unlikely alliance between leftwingers and the misogynists of the Wikiblokesphere," which has seen them "indulge in the basest slut-shaming and misogyny". Again, if this is true somewhere, it is not true of serious, left online debate, where words like "slut" are simply abhorred. In a similarly one-sided Guardian report, Amelia Gentleman quoted Swedish tabloid journalist Oisin Cantwell, who argued, quite outrageously, that the "celebrity support for Assange was similar to the support offered by Hollywood stars to Roman Polanski when he was arrested last year, accused of raping a 13-year-old..." Nick Davies, the leading Guardian reporter who originally organised the Guardian-WikiLeaks partnership with Assange, before the two sides fell out, wrote a piece titled: '10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange.' This included salacious tidbits such as: "Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had 'the worst sex ever' with Assange: 'Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent.'" And: "Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was 'unthinkable' for her." Bianca Jagger noted in Huffington Post that Davies had published "selective passages from the Swedish police report, whilst omitting exculpatory evidence contained in the document". Assange was, Jagger wrote, being "subjected to a 'trial by newspapers,' in an effort to discredit him". Assange's former barrister James Catlin commented: "The complete absence of due process is the story and Davies ignores it. Why does due process matter? Because the massive powers of two arms of government are being brought to bear against the individual whose liberty and reputation are at stake." With "media partners" like these, WikiLeaks hardly needs enemies. Blood On The Guardian's Hands? Worse was to come from the Guardian. On December 27, Africa correspondent David Smith reported: "Zimbabwe is to investigate bringing treason charges against the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other individuals over confidential talks with US diplomats revealed by WikiLeaks." Treason charges could mean the death penalty, which, one would guess from this article, could mean blood on WikiLeaks' hands. One week later, on January 3, James Richardson, an "account services director for Hynes Communications", wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian claiming: "now, with the recent release of sensitive diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks may have committed its own collateral murder, upending the precarious balance of power in a fragile African state and signing the death warrant of its pro-western premier..." WikiLeaks, Richardson argued, should just shut up: "Before more political carnage is wrought and more blood spilled – in Africa and elsewhere, with special concern for those US-sympathising Afghans fingered in its last war document dump – WikiLeaks ought to leave international relations to those who understand it – at least to those who understand the value of a life." Political analyst Glenn Greenwald commented on Salon: "There was just one small problem with all of this: it was totally false. It wasn't WikiLeaks which chose that cable to be placed into the public domain, nor was it WikiLeaks which first published it. It was The Guardian that did that." In fact the Guardian decided to publish the cable about Tsvangirai, not WikiLeaks, which only published the leak after the Guardian had done so. The reaction in the US press was predictable enough. An article in the Wall Street Journal was titled, 'Julian Assange's reckless behavior could cost Zimbabwe's leading democrat his life.' Who was to blame? "Julian Assange of WikiLeaks." A piece in the Atlantic observed: "WikiLeaks released [this cable] to the world" and so "provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy". (Ibid.) Responding to criticism, the Guardian amended Richardson's opinion piece, noting: "This article was amended on 11 January 2011 to clarify the fact that the 2009 cable referred to in this article was placed in the public domain by the Guardian, and not as originally implied by WikiLeaks." The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, worked hard to explain why David Smith had reported that WikiLeaks, rather than the Guardian, had published the Tsvangirai cable. Katz wrote: "it would be fair to describe us as joint publishers of any cables we have selected, with joint responsibility for any consequences of their release". Using the WikiLeaks name was "a piece of widely understood journalistic shorthand. The material was routinely referred to as a 'WikiLeaks revelation'". If the term "WikiLeaks revelation" is "shorthand" that is "widely understood" to refer to the Guardian's status as joint publishers with WikiLeaks, why did David Smith not turn to his own editor for comment on the Guardian's shared responsibility in the news piece reporting that Morgan Tsvangirai faced a treason inquiry? Has any Guardian journalist ever turned to the Guardian editor for comment on allegations that the Guardian-WikiLeaks partnership had endangered life? We asked Ian Katz on Twitter but he failed to reply. It seems clear that the Guardian has not rushed to advertise its shared responsibility – we suspect it will be news to many people. The crucial point, in light of the Guardian's amendments, is that mainstream media outlets have shown flat zero interest in accusing the Guardian of having blood on its hands for publishing the Tsvangirai cable. But why? There is only one explanation: the earlier media outrage was motivated, not by a desire to protect life in Zimbabwe, but by a desire to demonise and destroy Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. A related propaganda theme is that WikiLeaks has recklessly "dumped" a "flood" of diplomatic cables on the web, so endangering lives. Arch-war monger John Bolton wrote in the Guardian: "WikiLeaks has yet again flooded the internet with thousands of classified American documents, this time state department cables" which was the "third document dump." The Daily Mail reported: "Then this week he [Assange] disclosed around 250,000 cables from U.S. embassies, many containing sensitive information." This, also, is nonsense. In reality, WikiLeaks has, so far, slowly and carefully released only about 2,000 documents in close cooperation with its media partners. Greenwald explains the rationale behind the selective outrage and false claims: "To justify this assault, the U.S. Government needs to claim that WikiLeaks is somehow distinct from what other press outlets do. So it invents outright falsehoods to do so: unlike newspapers, WikiLeaks indiscriminately dumps diplomatic cables without editorial judgment; unlike newspapers, they refuse to be transparent about their methods (nobody is less transparent about what they do than large newspapers); and now, WikiLeaks endangers people's lives by recklessly publishing a cable which leaves democratic leaders in Zimbabwe vulnerable to attack, even though it wasn't published by them at all, but by The Guardian." Once again, the mainstream media has distorted and deceived to manufacture, isolate and target a 'threat' for destruction. Certainly WikiLeaks is embarrassing the powers that be much more effectively than mainstream journalism. But mainstream outlets also publish government leaks, including 'Top Secret' information, which the diplomatic cables are not. Assange is a journalist and he is engaging in journalistic activity. The "collateral damage" of his destruction might well involve the freedoms enjoyed by the very journalists currently seeking that outcome. Suggested Action The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to: Ian Katz at the Guardian Email: ian.katz@guardian.co.uk ian katz (iankatz1000) on Twitter Nick Davies Email: nick.davies@guardian.co.uk Nick Davies (Bynickdavies) on Twitter Libby Brooks Email: libby.brooks@guardian.co.uk Libby Brooks (libby_brooks) on Twitter Amelia Gentleman Email: amelia.gentleman@guardian.co.uk amelia gentleman (ameliagentleman) on Twitter Please blind-copy us in on any exchanges or forward them to us later at: editor@medialens.org This Alert is Archived here: Collateral Damage - WikiLeaks In The Crosshairs Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook The second Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century' by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book: "Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth." Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop Donate... Media Lens relies on donations for its funding. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead? The email address we have for you is stephenshirling@hotmail.com, you can change it here Would you like to stop receiving alerts? Unsubscribe here >> Media Lens

[YOUTUBE]CWoLVWo_xVo[/YOUTUBE] New series on FX. Watched the pilot and thought it has potential to be decent. Anyone else watching?

THE LIVERPOOL BOAT SHOW.. April 29 – May 8 if your into this sort of thing, boat and all that, this is for you. this will be massive for liverpool Count down to the Liverpool Boat Show by Peter Elson, Liverpool Daily Post Jan 19 2011 High hopes are riding on the first Liverpool Boat Show – so is it still on track? Peter Elson reports THERE’S just over three months to go before the first-ever Liverpool Boat Show (LBS) opens, and the senior management team is looking suitably stressed. “We’re broadly where we should be,” soothes Rob Mackenzie, LBS chief executive officer and operations manager. “All licensing agreements with bodies such as Liverpool City Council, Gower Street Estates, British Waterways and Pearl are in place and working well. “A major legacy will be the £750,000 permanent pontoons now being installed ahead of schedule by British Waterways and Blue Point Marine Services.” Besides the prestige, it is claimed the show will pump £30m into the local economy. The website is now open for ticketing and the big marketing push will start next week for the show, which runs from April 29 – May 8. Somewhat awkwardly, the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton falls on the show’s opening day, but will be shown on a giant screen. The event will hit the deck running as Europe’s largest boat show on its first outing – overtaking London, Southampton, Paris and Dusseldorf. The show innovatively combines a large, outdoor free show open to the public, with the main marina and gated areas requiring a ticket or wristband costing £12-£15 a day for adults. “It’s a radically different business model to mesh together paying visitors with those who just want a free look,” said Mr Mackenzie. Between 300,000-400,000 visitors are expected, compared to, say, Dusseldorf’s 220,000 visitors. Crucially for Liverpool, it is hoped these visitors will include around 100,000 serious enthusiasts who are the real key to the show’s success. These are the people with money in their pockets who will make it worthwhile for the top-end boat builders to attend now and in future years. They will be among the elite wristband visitors with access to the premier areas. LBS achieved what is necessary to attract these high spenders, by signing four global luxury motor yacht brand leaders: Fairline, Princess Motor Yachts, Sealine and Sunseeker. Once these are onboard, the rest of the industry feels obliged to follow them to an event. “Around 50% of these boat owners live north of Birmingham, so the top boat builders realise they want to be in Liverpool,” said Mr Mackenzie. “And only 5% of these northern boat owners ever attend the London or Southampton shows.” David Lewis, Sunseeker London chief executive, said: “There’s a lot of wealth and experience in northern England, so Liverpool appeals to us. “Late April is a good time for a boat show. By then, wealthy clients are back from the Caribbean or ski-ing and we can bring them here, whereas they’d miss the London show.” Chris Cleverly, Princess Motor Yacht Sales managing director, said: “We used to have an office in Cheshire and we should come back. We will go to Liverpool to sell boats, as it is an excellent early year opportunity.” Mr Mackenzie said: “I’ve never experienced before the tremendous support we’ve had from local businesses and organisations. “Coutts, Barclays Wealth, Grosvenor, Credit Suisse, Boodles are all sponsors and make our job easier by bringing their clients with them. “We’ve never had an ounce of this co-operation in London. “Everyone’s saying this is good for Liverpool and asking how they can help.” Heathcotes signed a £300,000 contract for the show’s catering. “It’s a first-time event, so there are mistakes to be corrected and problems to be solved,” admitted Mr Mackenzie. “But I want to underline the team is enjoying it. We’re passionate about delivering a top event. “It’s more than just a boat show, it’s about getting a vast number of people here to enjoy themselves.” James Gower, LBS event director, whose idea the show originally was, said: “The plan is for the Liverpool Boat Show to carry on for many years. “The new pontoons in Albert Dock are over-engineered for extra buoyancy and longevity to provide 280 berths. “They are 4m wide, instead of the 2m wide ones they replaced, to deal with the biggest crowds. “Southampton Boat Show started 40 years ago with 12 boats in a makeshift ex-Army marquee. It now attracts 100,000 visitors and is worth £50m to the local economy. “We hope Liverpool Boat Show will initially be worth about £30m to the local economy and be one of Europe’s best. “The setting, among the UK’s largest group of Grade I-listed buildings, ensures it will become one of the best-loved and most popular boat shows anywhere. “It’s a fantastic canvas, which contrasts with the soulless exhibition hall shows of Paris and Dusseldorf. “When we first started working on this event, in 2006, there was no Liverpool Arena & Convention Centre, no Capital of Culture and the hotels were just not there. That’s all changed.” There will be around 250 landside-based exhibitors, including electronic firms, component suppliers and holiday companies. The Guinness Bar, a once popular fixture of London Boat Shows, has signed an exclusive contract with LBS. “We’re trying to create something animated with character that’s not sterile, but has high water interactivity,” said Mr Mackenzie. “There will be an Aqua Theatre, water taxis and major regattas on the river both weekends organised by Royal Liverpool Yacht Club and kindred clubs. “We’ll have boating masterclasses, have-a-go kayaking, tall ships, heritage feature boats, canal narrow boats, historic boat parades and a marine literary festival. “Now the Leeds and Liverpool Canal link terminus is at Canning Dock, I think attending the Boat Show for the waterways community will be a very popular and romantic notion. “We’ve even integrated the Comedy Festival into the event. Our mobile music barge for 30 – 40 bands will be a huge hit. “The highly experienced Bernard Davis, who has organised Liverpool Shanty Festivals, has done a great job putting this together.” Liverpool Cruise Terminal will also be utilised for tall ships and two warships that will be open to the public. Jo Cardew, marketing manager, said: “We’re reaching out to 1.2m boating enthusiasts through every media means. “This includes newsletters, advertising, affiliated clubs, the traditional specialist, local and national press and latest digital methods through Twitter and dedicated e-shots. “The main campaign should reach 35m people, including London press and Tube adverts.” Other key local partners include Ryanair, Easyjet, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Merseytravel, The Mersey Partnership and Visit Liverpool who will provide a joint promotional message. Liverpool One will display a branded boat and the M62 Rocket flyover will be adorned with a light display. “We’ve got the necessary critical mass of exhibitors,” said Mr Mackenzie. “As Jack Nicklaus used to say, ‘We’re coming down the 18th with a chance to win’.”

[YOUTUBE]4w96-v81Ve4[/YOUTUBE] Worth 24 seconds of your time

Following our relentless attacks I mean powers of persuasion we have succeeded with on the *f and the voting fiasco on the bus story I am hoping that we can now attack the government to get fuel prices down to a more reasonable level again. I know it's only a leter but our MPs are obliged to bring it up in the commons if enough of us bitch I mean request them too. Below is a tgemplate of the letter to email to your MP and their email address is on the final link. Lists of MPs - UK Parliament Good luck all.