Huguenot

REsumably, you can tell us what kind of information this would be without threatening your freedom? *cowers and trembles*

Nobody will deny the whiff of petty corruption in the wheedling of expenses claims, or self-aggrandising geriatrics claiming consultancy fees to speak on certain issues in the House of Lords (although their impact is questionable). Nobody will deny the need to extinguish it immediately. However, is characterising this as 'rampant' losing our sense of proportion? * We have an effective democracy where our leadership is ultimately responsible to the electorate. * The payment of bribes to secure public expenditure or activity is still the exception not the norm, and exterminated in the glare of public exposure. * We have no unscrupulous despots turning national assets into personal wealth. * We have had no careless exploitation of our natural resources to ravage our environment. If we lose our sense of proportional reaction will this leave us powerless to act when actually are faced with a genuine crisis? If we go on strike for larger kettles in our tube station canteen, will this leave us bereft of support when a real safety issue comes along? Are we crying wolf too quickly?

They were born between 1945 and 1960 If they're not retired yet, they're about to. They spent their own savings, but secured themselves final salary pensions from the salaries of their children. They stripped the world of its resources and frittered them on junk. They turned our energy reserves into a cocktail of gases overwhelming the ecology of the planet. They governed over global trade imbalances that threaten the security of our nations. They demonstrated such irresponsibility and indifference to financial management that they plunged the world into recession. They still deny it was them - is this really plausible?

I think it's offtopication SteveT, we'd need to start a separate thread!

Sorry, cross posted Mark, I won't bring it up again! ;-)

Tony your only professed reason for knowing the figures was so that you could move to a safe area. The crime figures by area are available through the met police. These meet your objectives and are not 'gagged'. You seem to be expressing a desire to punish all people of certain skin colours for the actions of some of them. For that I think you should be both gagged and imprisoned. Because there is no possible constructive purpose to ascribing the actions of a few people to the entirety of their race I understand the figures are not collected rather than 'gagged'.

I think history will judge the Royal Mail strike to have been pointless: a twentieth century solution to a twenty first century problem. They're inefficient and hugely indebted. The unions want the government to guarantee jobs that aren't required for a product the public don't want on the terms they're prepared to offer.

The right to strike is a fundamental cornerstone of a democratic nation. It's a weapon of last resort, as it's intrinsically destructive. The right to strike itself is misused when the impact of the strike far exceeds the potential cost to the worker. A great example of this is the Tube. The system won't be allowed to fail, and there are virtually no 'real' alternatives. Hence the workers can strike with impunity and frequently do over insultingly unreasonable demands. Ther salary, working hours, holidays, perks and delinquent behaviour are quite out of step with their qualifications and commitment. That's not a victory for workers rights, it's greed and indolence. For those who don't know the figures, it's over 40 grand a year starting salary (after 3 month probation), 35 hour week, 43 days annual leave, free travel for drivers and their families (an estimated 10 grand a year value).

Dirty Pi$$ed Grandads With Smelly Socks?

Ah, so you intend to use it for ethnic cleansing? Great idea. As I said, gagging doesn't require me to put a better case than the one you've made here. *shaky head smiley*

Sure a great example. I think the people most pressing for the disclosure of crime figures on a racial basis have absolutely no intention of solving the problem do they? You, for example TLS, have no intention of using these figures to solve crime issues, because you don't have it within your ability to do so. What you do have the ability to do is manipulate the data to peddle race hatred, which I'm sure is not your intent. So what do you want it for TLS? If 'gagging' someone is not lending a meat cleaver to a psychopath then I'm all for it.

I made a will when I got married, the good lady Bumblina made one last week. I hope our end isn't nigh.

I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that a platform cleaner could do better at running a rail system than a trained professional, but each to his own etc. ;-) My original comment was a hypothetical... 'If that was the case, etc...' If it was the case that 'any' workforce had undermined the managers ability to manage, then that would indeed qualify as a militant disruptive workforce. I only stuck the NHS into that list as a ribald joke. However, my experiences with public health systems elsewhere in the world do suggest that a better job could have been done to date. I think it's convenient and populist to 'blame the management', but the management aren't another race of evil knirds trying to stuff it up - they're undoubtedly trying to do the best they can within the confines of the system. If the workforce is part of the problem then they need to take responsibility for their negative contribution.

Only in your head is it relevant TLS, because you're obsessed with race. The question was about gagging of society, and your response is: 'Yes I've been gagged because I can't have a go at people on a race basis for crime'. I'm afraid Jeremy's assertion that 'some rather unpleasant views may come to the surface' has rather taken us by storm here hasn't it? There is a difference between 'gagging society', freedom of speech and peddling obnoxious offensive prejudices.

The banks The London Underground British Leyland. The coal industry. The NHS. ;-) The list is endless.

Footloose?

I think mankind's done a pretty good job, compared with say turnips. Is Curly suggesting that the Bible was actually written as a sort of legal constitution cum social framework by fortune tellers with 2009 specifically in mind? Why didn't they mention the internet then? Or to buy Yahoo! shares in 1995?

I agree with you Jeremy, I guess they wanted the negotiating crutch of an 'independent expert'. If that is the case, it speaks volumes about the militant workforce that they've crippled the management into spending this amount of money every time they want to change something. I wonder whether NHS employees are aware that their constant attacks on management have had such a destructive effect... that it is the attitudes of the employees that have possibly brought the institution into such a parlous state? Militant workforces often don't realise that running an effective organisation is a two way street.

There's always a possibility that the whole thing is a cover, but I don't think that's likely. The fact that I would run such a campaign doesn't speak for the motives of others. Besides, I'm quite open about it, and I imagine that others who shared my views would be open also. It's only those who practice deception that suspect it in others. Hence in somewhere as fraudulent as a church, I imagine you'd see it everywhere. I guess that the majority of those who support a cinema just support a cinema. It's romantic, and delivers commercial benefit for the whole community by building associated businesses. I think the cinema vs church thing has only blown up because a church is trying to hypothetically 'take something away' from the community to serve their own nefarious purpose. If it had been a pound shop, there'd be a cinema vs pound shop debate.

Hey Sean, we all love you!

No worries Helena I didn't work it out either, I was scratching my head when I read it. All makes sense now. But then I've never left a key in the lock unless I was really drunk, and then it would be on the outside, and the door would be swinging in the breeze. I should say that I've done that overnight a number of times on Crawthew Grove, and we never had any unwanted visitors.

Quite right Bizzy, quite right. All the economic liberalism that we cherish would suggest that we should let the market take its course and a church it should be. But as it happens we don't let the market take its course very often, we temper that with the long term health of our communities from an enlightened standpoint. Hence planning laws. My view (and possibly others) would consent to religion as an acceptable a secondary pastime. Have your fun and good luck to you. However, the renewed vigour of evangelical churches demands the opposite: it would not be inappropriate to say that these churches feel that religion should be the core of our lives, and that the medieval and arbitrary regulations the church imposes should dictate our every activity. I consider those affiliated to religions as victims of a ruthless, pervasive tyranny. Hence granting planning permission to petty local despots for a campaign office is entirely against the long term health of our communities. Its use as a cinema is subject to economic realities, and hence a bit of a red herring. Saying it should be a cinema is whistling in the wind. However, saying it should not be a church is quite within the rights of the community.

Well, blow me away, TLS tries to get ethnicity of criminals into the debate shocker. Mate, you just didn't need that middle sentence. Your post was interesting, engaging (even likeable) until you tried to make it about race. Don't you get it? This becomes a case in point I suppose. Am I gagging TLS? In the wider debate 'rampant corruption' is a silly way to describe the UK. It's evidently not the best, but the coverage given to transgressions (for example police malpractice) must prove that it's pretty open here. Have you never been anywhere else in the world?

Isn't the debate kind of weird? I mean, if there's no money, there's no money. Drafting in someone to help make the cuts in a reasonable way isn't necessarily a bad idea? To assume that they won't "understand the quality of care provided or what that service does for patients" is the kind of prejudiced comment that makes me think that the biggest problem in the NHS is some of their employees. We would all prefer that there were no cuts at all, but guess what NHS, it's the population that pays your wages, and if they're skint, so are you.

Good God, Quids quoting Keynes? Will wonders never cease. Of course, the New Deal