Loz

Strangely worded: "Do NOT remove all the benefits of convicted London rioters". What? Only remove *some* of their benefits?

A tax on savings SC? Economically brave.

MP is joining me in the reading comprehensions night classes, CS. Though Prostateman is far funnier and I think he should change it. Maybe we should get an epetition up and have it discussed in parliament.

I think Monty Python is rather appropriate at this stage... (Walks down the hall. Opens door.) Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT? M: Well, I was told outside that... Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! M: What? Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!! M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!! Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it. Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry. Q: Not at all. M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can say it all you like?! ..., but these views are frankly simplistic and wrong. Capital has > created this society, big business over community. Sorry, but if we - as a country - wanted to change we could. We are going along with the ride because the current system offers us a carrot and we run for it. Community can live hand in hand with capitalism. Community has been crushed by the size of cities where most people don't know their neighbour's name. This whole, weird notion that community is borne from government is one of those strange ideas of the far-left, where everything is centrally allocated and controlled. > As for ' won't happen', again overly simplistic and not thought out. It is actually happening , > and has been for some time. The effects of which are global and affecting change. I read this every day in the Guardian comments area - people convinced that some great revolution is rumbling. Blogs are hot air - any actual proof of this emerging utopia, MissNoodleHats?

Damn. Mick's biology knowledge is fine. My reading comprehension sucks.

Did you fail biology at school by any chance, Mick?

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And on a serious note, does anyone really think that an ED mother or father would start > challenging someone who had parked there who did have a 'genuine need' to do so? Well... they would 'tut'. Possibly audibly.

Prostateman? Worst superhero ever. "Prostateman - HEEEELLLP!" "Hang on - I need a wee."

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How old can my special needs boy be before you all > start moaning about us using the Parent Child > Spaces? No different age than any other - eleven, I believe, for Sainsburys. But you'll probably get moaned at well before that anyway - aged five was mentioned at one stage I think.

Big mistake not allowing lurkers.

Someone posted this up on the Guardian comment site, which I thought was interesting: "I'm not a lawyer but have had it explained by a lawyer and I understand this to be the case: in riots, anyone convicted gets an automatically higher sentence because, in addition to the crime they were convicted for, they have ridden on the back of someone else's violence. Basically, a looter uses the violent crowd as a weapon (intimidation, distraction, actual physical violence) the same way that a getaway driver gets charged the same as those armed robbers who actually waved the guns."

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RBS chief Stephen Hester admits taxpayers' money 'leaks' into bonuses Can we have one thread on the looting without someone slipping a banker non-sequitur in?

The interesting figure I just noticed is that gross income under the 75% percentile - ?720.10. That equates to about ?37.5K per year. I bet there is quite a few people out there saying 'Tax the rich!!' who don't realise they *are* the rich...

Whilst 'tax the rich' is a popular mantra at the moment, is it really true that they are not paying their 'share'. The top 10% of earners pay over 50% of the total income tax take and the top end earners are probably also contributing in the form of capital gains and corporation taxes. But, most interesting, I dug around the HMRC site and found this. Now I've only had a quick read-through, but I found an interesting table 2.7 - Income tax (net of tax credits) as a per cent of gross earnings across percentile income levels for specimen families,. [pre] Position in earnings distribution 10th 25th 50th mean 75th 90th Gross earnings (? weekly) 281.4 361.6 508.6 610.7 720.1 1,007.1 Tax burden (per cent of gross earnings) Childless single 11.2 13.1 15.1 15.9 16.5 20.8 Childless couple 1.8 13.1 15.1 15.9 16.5 20.8 Couple with two children -33.4 -12.8 8.1 14.2 15.1 20.1 [/pre] So are the rich really not paying their share? Or am I reading this wrong?

MissNoodlesHats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can see from the government guided response for > the SUN " shop a wally' that they have spun the > argument away from themselves and the society they > have created. I'm sorry, but I'll say it again - it is the society WE created. There is no 'they', no secret Illuminati running things - they tell us what we want to hear and we vote for them. Again and again. Cameron has been in power 18 months and has actually done very little to change from the status quo. He doesn't need to - all three main parties are singing from the same slightly-centre-right song sheet and it's the song the electorate demands to hear. > Maybe its blogs like these and the 10's of thousands that now exist that will circumnavigate the information put > out by central government. This is where things will really get out of step and they won't see it coming before > its to late. Won't happen. All blogs are opinion and people will only sing the praises of a blog if it agrees with what they think. The riots have swung the electorate slightly more to the right - they are the blogs that will be read and believed.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In this sense, sticking up signposts around Sainsbury carpark identifying priority parking for > Mums with Kids is sending a clear message to a core audience that says 'we like you'. I'm wondering if people would be so happy if they put parking spots aside for "people with cars worth over ?40K". You know, for marketing purposes.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm morally opposed to two tier education systems. The people with money will always buy a better education for their offspring, be it extra tuition or better access to resources. I have no issue with people going private. Apart from anything else, it means more pounds per child in the state system. More tiering within the state system to ensure the talent is correctly channelled together would be, in my opinion, a good thing as well.

Providing it involves 'making sacrifices', as opposed to hocking yourself to the eyeballs or otherwise living beyond your means, then applauded.

OK, I'll play devils advocate here. What we saw last week was the complete break down of law and order. People looting felt the law was beyond them - why else would they have brazenly broke into shops knowing that press and cctv cameras were focussed on them. This is the law trying to reassert its authority. Not only is the crime being taken into account, but the circumstances around the crime - i.e. if you were out there, then your crime is considered as part of the general violence. There are going to be anomalies - the woman getting 5 months for receiving the looted shorts being one - but I hope the appeals process will right those wrongs. I can see people's arguments, but I am really, really struggling to have any sympathy to any punishment dealt to anyone who had an involvement with the looting.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure really what I'm getting at, I'm not trying to rehash the god thread, I guess I'm just > wondering whether our footprints, our echoes, our ripples....well...matter. The depressing, and yet rather liberating, truth is that in the bigger picture, no, it doesn't. If you consider that a single human life, in comparison with the size and age of the universe or even the earth, is fleeting and irrelevant. That used to concern me, but now I just find that a release. There is no pressure to leave a legacy - just enjoy your life for yourself. I am the product of a single given sperm meeting a single given egg. Any number of factors in the life of my parents (which may have meant they may never had met), plus the pure maths of the millions of sperm also around at the moment of my conception means that the odds against me ever existing are just too massive to even put a number to. Just being born means that I won the life lottery. I should spend the prize wisely. So, in the wider scheme of things, no, our lives don't mean one jot. But personally, you got amazingly lucky just to get the chance to exist, so enjoy the ride as much as you can.

Hard Friday night in the pub, MP?

> Best Indian - Swadesh and Dulwich Tandoori I can't agree - Tandoori Nights is head and shoulders above the rest.

California? Gone down the tube because of immigration? Nothing to do with Enron, then... I was in San Francisco in 1990. Half the billboards were entirely in Spanish then. It's hardly been traditional, mid-west, white only bible belt stuff, has it. (Chalk up an new one today... I've never been accused of being a far lefty before)

> Oh and noodle hats? I'm not Brits bs, I'm an immigrant. Ditto.