Huguenot

Gosh, there must be something I can't see. I don't even see it as vaguely morally justifiable to hand out taxpayers money to anyone for housing and upkeep with nary a peep of gratitude. There's a reason to understand and share the sense of social responsibility - but this surely isn't the reality of benefits in the UK. The reality of benefits in the UK is the girl who thinks the state should pay her for a one bedroom flat because she's 27 and fancies a lifestyle change and productive jobs aren't really her kinda thing. Or 16 year old Art student who wants to be paid to finger daub her way to 18, spend the following 3 years rioting and smoking dope, and then spend the rest of her 50 years of productive time on the dole. Yes there are 47 year old blue collar workers in Ripon who haven't got a job through no fault of their own - but I think we'll find they're doing community work anyway, and you won't hear a word of complaint. I believe in the welfare state, but honestly think anyone who thinks we should ask for nothing in return is nuts. DJKQ makes sense that the amount of time is key - we should value everyone's time at minimum wage, otherwise there's a fundamental disrespect taking place. But 500 quid a month in housing and allowances is 85 hours. End of. To take taxpayer cash and refuse to do anything in return is the absolute insult. If taxpayers can't see that then they're suffering from doormat syndrome.

And Kipling, Santerme?

:) Thanks edressi10, I thought I was getting in all manner of trouble then. To respond to ianr, you are clearly a man of letters. I'm proud of my knowledge but the maths of that chap has never crossed my doors. To paraphrase the relevant arguments, it's important to be aware of the nature of your research sources, but not necessarily wrong. For example, if you wanted to know if Halo III was good, you should ask the players of Halo III. The data source is not balanced, but it's relevant. However, with the prevalence of crime, a data source such as comments on this thread may not reflect the experiences of the population at large, simply because this thread is likely to attract those who have been victim to crime. Hence it may lack credibility. Apologies to ianr.

Cross-post ianr, but as you've guessed, I'm on it.

Sorry, edresi10, your point is a valid one. I'm not sure it's the intent of others to bully. I think maybe there's a strong argument for social harmony. Burglary is a terrifying and unsettling experience, but it's not pervasive. It's exceptional. It's entirely destructive to have 10,000 ED residents in a permanent state of anxiety over a crime that is unusual. Our society is bonded by a mutual trust that shouldn't be eroded on the basis of inappropriate fear.

Well, 15,000 and about 12 so far. About 0.08% or something. They're everywhere, I tell 'ee.

Forgive me Brum, I haven't seen any case made for the dispute. Allowing for my own idiocy, can you just bang it out in 3 to 10 bullet points for me? Honestly mate, I'm not a complete tit, maybe a partial one, but I just haven't been able to nail it.

I think you're right SMG - disaffected Lib Dem voters wouldn't return to Labour, they just wouldn't vote.

Gosh, what are you doing there in the middle of winter? I think Mockers went to Finland and mentioned something about mosquitos - guessing that won't be a problem in February.

And as usual those supporting the ffs have no argument but to whinge about how hard done by they are. Come on brum, let's have a proper argument for once? Let's have some information, some evidence, some rational debate? Go on mate, you know you can do it.

Besides the Lib Dems were always 'broken' by the clash between social liberals (who believe in big government and regulation) and market liberals (who believe in small governemnt and de-regulation). Whilst they were just barracking from the wings, their members could conveniently overlook this fracture. However when they actually had to set policy they were exposed. In other words, it wasn't any sort of coalition which derailed them, it was getting power.

Eh? Surely there is cross-party leadership, the hung parliament is working, and the coalition just makes all the compromises at once rather than dredging them up on every decision?

I think whether or not a tube would bring benefits to south London would depend on your definition of 'benefit', and what the alternative uses were for the cash. It might be a net loss to south London if funding on something more important was lost. The logic that the railway is impractical because you live a long way from it is lost on me. The tube would also be impractical if you lived a long way from the tube station. The point about the affordability of your house is also a bit confusing - if it had been within half a mile of a tube station you wouldn't have been able to afford it. Is that a benefit? QED.

In 1980 there were 280,000 students in UK universities. This year there will be about 2,100,000. That's why the system is broken. If we only had 300,000 students in HE they could all have their tuition and grants paid by taxpayers. If the students don't pay their fees, then the taxpayer is. Ridgeley if you're happy to pay for some young pisshead to spend 3 years studying golf course management then you're a better man than I.

Highlander II Why, why, why?

But you have done it a laundrette, right?

Are you seriously telling me you've never laid about a deep fried burrito with a driver? I simply cannot believe that.

That's because you're in prison LadyM ;-)

*batteries not included very small robots

Bicentennial Man Robot. Or not.

Silent Running Robots. No robots.

Short Circuit 2 Robots robots robots

Star Wars Episode 4 Hidden Fortress. Robots.

There's an awful lot of bonkers prejudice knocking around on this thread about north vs south. The Underground wasn't created by government as a public service, but by private capital. All the railways were run as profit making ventures. The first of these - the Met line - was created to capitalise on slum clearance programmes that were relocating 'the poor' outside Lonodon (where have I heard this before?). Before this North London was really badly serviced for trains - so it was a massive commercial opportunity. They only started marketing themselves jointly as the 'Underground' in 1908, and were only nationalised in 1948 alongside many other fits of dogmatic lefty strategies. It didn't extend south of the river because the market was more limited and the costs were a little higher because of the technology of the time. Anyone who thinks cross rail is being created because of some weirdy west London prejudice is failing to see the wood for the trees - it's for national economic benefit. If you want to extend the underground (God only knows why) into E Dulwich, you'll need to come out with a very strong economic case for it. Bet you can't.

Star Wars Epsiode 2 People. Dead Robots.