Huguenot

The problem with the state pension is that those people receiving it today originally paid into a social fund to pay for it - National Insurance. However, when they wanted tax cuts but the same level of public service they spent the NI fund on themselves whilst they were still working. Now to receive the pension they're simply creaming off current day tax payers. I think present day pensioners should be apologising for what is a grand theft they've committed against their grandchildren's earnings that their own grandparents never committed against them. So a present day pensioner arguing about 'fairness' is so far out onto thin ice it's hardly worth worrying about.

I don't think we're anti-evolutionary (cross post with M & MP), the time scale is too short. It's more likely that we're in the middle of a population bubble that's on the cusp of collapse. Winning societies will be those that manage to intelligently manage their resources to sustain themselves beyond the crash. This means learning the relevant lessons about consideration, rationalism, energy management, nimbyism and social responsibility. Those are mainly the estate of 'successful' people (as you describe them). I see no evidence that Britain is scoring an awful lot of points in any of those areas at the moment, so I wouldn't assume that we'll be a 'winning' society.

I think the default position in a two person society such as this illustration would be collaboration - the need for social support would outweigh an idle colleague's desire for indolence. Likewise in social structures that involve the redistribution of 'wealth' or resources, the mutual association that binds a 'small' society together are vital for preventing unfairness to become prevalent, not ideology. These small societies also become more efficient, with tasks such as childcare being freely taken up by family or social group members to allow the women more freedom. The question becomes at what stage the tribe becomes too large for these social links to work effectively. Once the 'blagger' achieves anonymity, his/her indulgence is secured. So I agree with equality, but see its provision lying in the decentralisation of state control and 'taxation' or benefits in kind to be organised on a local basis. I completely disagree with 'redistribution of wealth', but I profoundly believe in 'equality of opportunity' and legislation that prevents the domination of super-corporates that eventually damage competition. I love the internet and the fresh breath of life it's given small business. I can see a situation where small business can create buying cartels to fight giants such as Tesco directly. Far from the global consolidation of the 'Blade Runner' dystopia, I see a future where local small business fragments and flourishes. Far from 'Big Society' this is 'small society' and decidedly left wing ;-)

Get it here maybe? FOC.

Brenda, an effective tan may more than compensate for your apparent lack of resources in the short term, as many a Footballer's Wife would attest. Can get a bit rocky after you reach your teabag forties though.

In what way did it resemble a 'third world type market' tarot? What does a 'third world type market' look like?

I was just a bit confused about that part as well. IDS said it would be resolved when the single benefit payment was phased in, so that there was greater visibility. This implys that the separation between joint and individual household income isn't being phased in just because it's not practical, rather than that it's not policy. Someone else then commented that this was often the only money that the 'mother' got to control - does this mean that child benefit is only paid to mothers? So then, if this is about visibility and mothers, is this then being income linked only for working mothers in the 44k market, and the father's income isn't checked? I just can't work it out, that's all.

Thanks heavens for that. Talk about taking it right to the brink of catastrophe before snatching it back. And then such a disastrous final chip for the US... Terrific.

Gosh, ten minutes later and it's all starting to go the other way!!

I don't think you've been reading the earlier posts in this thread SteveT. Immigrants are estimated by the Home Office to bring in 2.5 billion more in tax revenue than they attract in benefits. Besides, you don't need to be an immigrant to claim benefits. There's plenty of white British people in South London doing that too. Whilst there can be occasional language problems this is far outweighted by the other benefits derived. To be honest SteveT, your argument is just another one of those poorly informed prejudices that likes to keep repeating 'immigrants, benefits, different to me'. I'm not going to be bothered to repeat points made earlier, and because prejudice isn't based on rational or informed argument you're not going to change your mind anyway. It makes me ashamed to be British.

I'd have thought that one was obvious - immigration is less expensive, and paying locals to have children would require an increase in taxation that no-one would agree to. You'd only pursue that strategy if you thought this was the only issue at stake, and that 'locals' were intrinsically 'better' that 'foreigners'. There's also short termism - the nature of our government is that we need to achieve political goals in 5 year chunks. Heavy spending on child support by a government today is going to show no impact the next time they head to the polls, except a much heavier tax burden which will get them thrown out. Anyway this is an oversimplifcation of immigration issues. They are many and varied reasons for immigration as discussed earlier.

I think 'proper mentalist' is the only description one can give an opinion that draws an equivalence between humane slaughter and drinking virgin's blood. As I said, halal butchery is legal and your dietary requirements are your own responsibility. However, virgin's blood and wicker men don't qualify as 'valid debate', just silly nonsense from a person sustaining some of the most ridiculous opinions I've heard in a long time. If I talk down to you it's because you spend so much time in the gutter.

From a fashion perspective I like to wear cricket sweaters loosely over the shoulders of my pink Ralph Lauren polo shit. The Jodhpurs chafe and they don't have big enough pockets for my M16, but thems the breaks.

I think there's a perfectly valid debate to be had about the ethical and legal role of halal or kosher meat in the UK. It's worth bearing in mind that these practices were initially laid down because this was the most humane and disease free option available at the time. So, far from being barbaric this practice was incredibly civilized. There is undoubtedly a margin call on the level of cruelty involved. Many people contend that the rapid blood loss causes the animal to lose consciousness almost instantly. However, if you're happy to raise animals to eat them, then you're already on dodgy ethical ground, so playing some 'holier than thou' card is a bit daft. I'm a meat-eater, but don't pretend to justify it. The question is whether you want to alienate a huge proportion of the population at home and abroad over such an unclear issue. Clearly if you're already prejudiced, lack empathy and enjoy creating conflict, alienating so many people may seem like a bright idea.

If you've got an issue with halal meat tarot, then it's an argument you need to take to government, not hospitals. Whilst halal meat is legal the hospital is fulfilling it's obligations. If you have a special dietary requirement, be it vegetarianism or anti-halal, it's your own responsibility to communicate these to the caterers. I also note that your attack is on 'halal' but not on 'kosher', which uses the same methods. Is there a particular reason for you to stoke anti-muslim sentiment?

Crikey, you must have been terribly startled by the Chilean Miners, Ryder Cup and Tony Curtis threads! ;-) Some of Chesterfields many and varied markets are covered here and here.

Grab some snaps on your phone? Email them to the store, copying in the stabbing times and the daily mail for good measure ;-)

Well, you're not going to believe this, but that actually is me. I was at a Klan meeting and I hit my head on the edge of the table after I spilled the mulligatawny on my crotch. Bloody painful it was too. There was a photographer there, and I knew he'd take the thing all out of context.

Sorry cc. :-$

It's a two bed flat in a tenement block, the story can be found here in the Daily Express, a newspaper for the recently decesased. They have been the only residents in the tenement block for eight years, as even the council didn't deem it fit for human occupation. If anyone knows them please feel free to pass on this link to 30,000 quid flats in Glasgow. The council have also offered them council accommodation. It seems to me that the place is likely to be squalid, but they're very attached to it. The 95 grand valuation is clearly a con, and she probably wouldn't want to leave whatever the price. There is a lands tribunal process in Scotland, and I don't think anyone's out to get them.

The lack of contrast really undermines projected TV for me. The blacks are only as black as the wall they're projected onto - and that'll only be black if it's night and all the lights are off.

If people are so poor they're not pointlessly burning hydrocarbons then they're hardly the target of the ad. The ad is specifically targeting smug self-righteous middle class social climbing wannabes for whom trashing the environment with 4x4s is a status symbol. The ad is attempting to undermine the social cachet of excessive consumption. At the moment the desire for status means that these kind of people ridicule science, create ad hominen attacks on scientists, and claim there are no facts. The irony is that this kind of behaviour all comes from insecurity and a craving for social acceptance. The more this gang squeals, the more pathetic they look. The link for the royal society paper is here, one can either read it and become informed, or behave like a ninny and claim science is stupid, facts are for losers and that you know better than everybody else because it's a gut feel you have.

Sure katie, fill yer boots. I'm glad I picked you right.

Well I think you'd need all the details. Is it their flat? What's the money for? How as it calculated? What are the alternatives? They probably didn't build the flat themselves, so they're capitalising on the hard work and effort of other people. It may be that they should try and fit in with other people a bit more. Don't forget, 'Councils' are spending your money, and trying to do it wisely.

charliecharlie... erm what? Because you don't like the ad climate change is no longer a problem? WTF? Were you only involved in 10:10 because it was cute?