Marmora Man

er??? A strange reading of the campaign. The bus campaign was funded by rational atheists like myself to counter overly evangelical christian messages - not to give christians peace of mind. Nevertheless I'm glad you enjoy life.

Bizzy, In the words of the bus (a particularly reliable source of guidance) "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." I would excise the word "probably" but that's mater of choice.

A coherent set of values - if enough could agree on what those values should be - would have a practical function. It is unlikely that any one of many competing religions should provide the template for such values, given the history of every single religion. "NEW" religions (in the sense of a set of beliefs) such as humanism can, perhaps, set the right tone without the baggage of history. The problem is that to "convert" a majority from their existing religion (set of beliefs) to a new religion (set of beliefs) is very very difficult as this discussion has illustrated. Perhaps, over time, greater rationality and understanding of science will allow people to migrate from a belief in a supreme being to an understanding that mankind and nits future depends upon mankind and its actions.

Graham Gooch - the Sarn't Major of English cricket Ian Botham - for his "Boy's Own" return to cricket after ban for smoking marijuana. (Wicket with 2nd ball) David Gower - for perfect strokes combined with a properly irreverent attitude to training (flying a light plane over his practising colleagues) W G Grace - probably the first sporting superstar. On being bowled in an exhibition match said "they came to see me bat not you bowl - not out" Keith Fletcher - for his many brilliant rearguard innings saving England.

The prize goes to Ted Max. Working in the community Andy has developed strong links with the faith and voluntary sectors across South London. He has worked, part time, with the Centre for Social Justice helping Iain Duncan Smith and the Conservative Party to develop policies that will have a positive and real impact on the lives of those he has spent the last 8 years working alongside. In December 2008 Andy was selected as the Conservative Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for the Camberwell and Peckham Constituency ? challenging the incumbent MP ? The Right Honorable Harriet Harman. Andy passionately believes that it is time for politicians to get out of the Westminster bubble and find out what is really happening on the streets in the UK. For more details of Andy's thinking, activities and news of the Conservative Association in Peckham and Camberwell follow the link Conservative Association - Camberwell & Peckham To compare with our current MP see Harriet Harman

Living on the poverty line, as a community development worker on the estate has involved Andy mentoring young people and helping to set up a number of community services such as kids clubs, youth clubs, lunch clubs, parenting courses. Andy has had the privilege of seeing many peoples lives turned round from a life stuck on drugs to a life in full time work and in strong relationships. One more message to go!

Give it up Leagle Eagle - become a Humanist - all the good values of christianity and other religions without the need to attend or believe in the Tooth Fairy. The study of religion is OK - as is the study of science, literature, art, folk tales, morris dancing and so on as an academic exercise - but studying religion won't bring you to a greater truth.

I think that Palestine was under Roman rule 2000 years ago and therefore local dialect & latin would probably have been dominant at that stage. In about 325 Constantine established Christianity as the formal religion of the Roman Empire and sometime after that Formal, and later less formal demotic, Greek became the language of the Eastern Roman Empire - which is today known as the Byzantium Empire.

More News: By 2000 Andy was a successful Policy Officer in the Cultural Services Department at Croydon Council. In 2001 Andy gave up his job, sold his house and went to live and work on Monks Hill full time. Since then he has lived on the poverty line, as a community development worker on the estate.

candj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM, Sounds like you've answered your own > question?! There's more - there's more!!

In the 90's Andy became a Council employee working on policy formulation and delivery. At the same time he was also helping out at a church based youth club on Monks Hill, a social housing estate in Croydon, and began to recognise that the policies he was writing for Croydon Council were having little real effect on peoples lives living on Monks Hill.

Leagle, I admire your openess but ...... all of your posts posit that the Bible will provide the evidence if it is studied properly. Poor philosophy and poor theology. If Jesus existed - and there was, probably, a preacher / teacher / priest at or around 2000 years ago giving lessons, speeches and exhorting his followers to do the right thing in the expectation of salvation - that in itself is not proof of the existence of God or Jesus as the son of God. I'm an atheist - I cannot prove God doesn't exist but my understanding and knowledge of life, together with a light overview of scientific thought over the centuries, suggests to me that there is no God and certainly that organised religion is a waste of my time and quite probably a force for bad things in general. So my belief that there is no God has some rational basis - on the other hand a belief in God (or any god) depends upon "faith" in the absence of facts - a less rational basis for a belief. KNowing and understanding religion is a good thing - I spent time in the middle east recently and talking about Islam, Judaism and Christianity with a variety of fellow travellers of all persuasions was interesting as an insight into the way of life in the Levant 2000 years ago. I didn't experience a Damscene conversion tho'.

:-S

For me those sections would be sufficient - but reading Keef's suggestion provides another option. Is it possible to have a cascade - so the "top level" is call, as now, For Sale, Wamted & Recommendations and then having entered that section there are three (or more) subsections??

jumpinjackflash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only in the last few hours or so, I have just > confirmed a 10 day trip to Dubai in June! My > friend who has split with her fella transferred my > name over to his ticket. What a result! She'll > have much better time with me anyway! > > >:D< JJF - it will be hot hot hot in Dubai in June. Average daytime Temp ~ 39 / 40C - nighttime ~ 28 - 30C.

This section now fills a page every day or perhaps even faster. AS a result items put up for sale or wanted disappear from the screen rather quickly. Could the section be broken down into three sub sections - which might each fill at a slower pace and thus give greater visibility to each posting.

Hugenot, You're right, possibly your profession is possibly rated the same as or even perhaps somewhat below an NHS Manager and possibly newspaper reporters. Without being too disrespectful to your chosen way of earning a living I can conceive of a future without advertising, but not one without nursing. Nurses spend three years obtaining a degree level training and are then paid circa ?24K to look after others. I have no idea how advertising people are trained but those I've met in different marketing agencies don't appear to necessarily have many formal qualifications, beyond experience, to qualify them for the role. So a starting salary of circa ?16K whilst training "on the job" seems about right. Market rules and all that - if you had wanted to earn a nurses salary then there are usually plenty of nursing vacancies for those prepared to do the training. However, you may wish to disabuse me of this view?

No No NO No

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There you go MM, you make my case for me..... ;-) > > "we can make a sensible comparison of the social > benefit generated by you and your professional > colleagues" > > So not only do me and my morally crippled > colleagues not make as much money, but we're not > contributing 'social benefit'. > > These nurses are amazing! Rich, popular, and now > as MM describes...righteous! I thought I was merely enquiring about your profession. I have worked in healthcare related sectors for 17 years. Nurses are most certainly not Angels - nor are Doctors Gods. I don't believe their pay is too high and have, in my time, negotiated with the RCN over nurse pay demands. I would still like to know what your profession is - just so you know I started out as an NHS manager, a most reviled species, and I agree with comments on another thread that NHS managers could usefully be culled to reduce costs to the NHS and country.

Baked potato - with all the variation in toppings you've already identified. Scrambled eggs Tins of tuna - eaten from the tin. Saves on washing up. Apples.

Just what is this benighted profession - then, perhaps, we can make a sensible comparison of the social benefit generated by you and your professional colleagues?

My, admittedly sparse, experience of local councils is limited to fighting my way through almost impenetrable bureaucracy to: a. Obtain a planning review on a Tree Protection Order (on a Black Pine in the middle of a hillside with > 100,000 said black pines) that had been established in secrecy to prevent me lopping a tree 5 feet from my house. b. Seeking advice on Social Services support for frail Father-in-Law - which took in excess of 5 months, involved innumerable phone calls, ever changing staff and advisors, numerous visits, much chasing up, almost incomprehensible forms to be filled in, statements, counter statements, conflicting advice and confusion. These two experiences lead me to believe that a council department involved in Economic Planning is liable to add to the burden of business and the local economy rather than the reverse. Central planning had, I thought, died with the end of Soviet Russia. Better to establish the right conditions for encouraging business - low rates, good public transport, clean streets.

There's a good libertarian argument for letting the failed banks fail and keeping the state out of it. Some of the costs of the state bailout are themselves preventing / persuading banks not to lend. Having to pay 12% on the government preference shares when the gov't sets a bank rate of 1.5% isn't too clever. Final responsibility for this crisis rests with the state. For at least ten years, the Bank of England and government - and the central banks in most other countries - have kept interest rates below the market equilibrium. The result has been an frenzy of credit creation by the commercial banks. This led to an asset price bubble that has now burst. The recession we now face cannot be avoided by pseudo-scientific manipulations of ?aggregate demand? It is the natural result of malinvestment and general speculation. A return to prosperity is best achieved not by trying to reflate the speculative bubble, but by allowing the liquidation of bad investments to proceed as quickly as possible. I agree that this will be painful to those who lose money or livelihoods. But there is no avoiding the aftereffects of an inflationary boom. Governments can stand back and let weak institutions fail. This will bring on the worst financial collapse since 1931, and be followed by a nasty recession. Or they can spray vast amounts of our tax money into the financial markets, which might briefly delay the worst financial collapse since 1931 and a nasty recession to follow.

Hugenot, Good to see the data - I'd agree my response was a "kneejerk" libertarian take on centralised control and spending. However, having seen the headline numbers I'd suggest that there's probably a lot of fat in the Planning & Economic Development budget, it's only rising by a small % but could be cut. I'm also certain that more could be done with less people - less meetings, less memos and more action. Lord Digby (enobled by this government) stated that his experience of being a Minister for this government was that most ministries could do more with half the number of civil servants. A couple of comments your specific points: Privatisation (or reductions in subsidy) essentially means passing on the cost to the end user rather than the community. However, I tend to believe that healthcare and education are most in need by those who are least capable of paying for them[ Council's don't, on the whole, pay for the NHS or Education thru' council tax bills - this is a government service and cost. The last 12 years of government interference in both the NHS and the Education service have not been glorious - I believe firmly that more private enterprise (not for profit / charity included) in both sectors would benefit rather than harm the outcomes for health and education. We made a decision a century ago that our society would improve if we could share in the cost of educating the needy caring for the sick and encouraging public health through prevention (fitness) rather than cure (hospitals). A century ago there was an effective education system that delivered almost 100% literacy, not the case now. Similarly a century ago there was an effective healthcare system - the "poor" had Saturday Clubs (1d a week) - an early form of health insurance that covered many costs, many were not charged for healthcare at all. The nationalisation of health in 1948 has not been a great success - it remains the only nationalised health service outside of the remaining communist regimes and hasn't been copied by any successful, democratic industrial nation in the world. Having worked within it and alongside it for over 16 years I know it could be leaner, better and far more effective given strong management and less government interference. The emphasis on health rather than cure has not yet happened - and the fatuous campaign now running (fit4life) is patronising and probably ineffective. I feel that our success as a nation (recession witheld) is as a direct consequence of the group decision we made to help others out less fortunate than ourselves. To reject this philosophy now after we've reaped the benefits is rather to try and have your cake and eat it. You end up with Thatcher's failed society knifing teenagers and stealing your dogs. It is entirely possible to help others without creating a major welfare dependent client base. The state isn't the answer - it's been tried and seems, to me, to have failed. I don't argue the need for the cliche'd "safety net" but I do and will continue to argue for greater personal responsibility and use of charity / not for profit and, yes, profit based organisations to assist those in need and not the state.

Why not put the proposal the other way - not questioning potential cuts, which implies all the council spending is required, but asking "what are the essential services the council must offer" and then cutting everything else. Suggest we do need: a. Effective Social Services b. Effective street cleaning & collection of household waste c. Effective maintenance of repairs of roads & street lighting. After that I run out - leisure services***, libraries, museums could all be better handled by a not for profit / private sector / charity organisation, perhaps with some, limited, council subsidy. Do we need: a. Lots of councillors? b. A council PR department c. Community wardens *** - EG: The Brockwell Lido versus East Dulwich Leisure Centre. The former has been leased out to a private company for 309 years - the refurb and subsequent services are excellent. EDLC - refurb delayed and still a dingy experience.