Huguenot

I WANT WHAT YOU'VE GOT AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WORK FOR IT!!! Ha ha! Chortle!

MY NEEDS! I WANT, I WANT

People don't pay ME enough ATTENTION!!!!

Too true - AN END TO LIBERTY!! TO HELL WITH THIS COCKEYED LIBERAL SHITE PROPERTY IS THEFT I DON'T GET PAID ENOUGH FOR MY FINGER PAINTING SO IT'S YOUR FAULT!

Absolutely - we should have NO elected officials representing the people - only you!

Ha ha! Where are you going with this... "BBC Bias Against Benchmakers But More Importantly Me"? Or just... "Nobody Realises I Am More Important Than The War"? Or even... "Why Is Nobody Looking At Me"?

...and everyone loves you ;-)

There is of course an argument that what with the three day weeks and the power cuts of the 70s, that society was being held to ransom by a phalanx of extremist unelected tyrants controlling a mob without conscience. Personally I don't much care what their 'class' was, as I'm not into tribalism. However if the grievance of the 'working class' is that Thatcher stripped them of this power, then they're very much mistaken. Thatcher's mandate was taken from the election of '79 on a clear pledge to free the electorate of this tyranny. Jah, you and the people had tired of the despotism of under educated violent thugs in the hinterlands. Thatcher was merely the individual to hand. Contemporary historians suggest she was neither dogmatic nor particularly lucid at first. Whatever their 'class' I'm glad that the nation isn't be run by people for whom 'class war' is more important that freedom and opportunity. Had the unions had their way, the UK would now resemble the polluted industrial wastelands and blighted lives of Eastern Europe.

That was me. I just meant that policing does involve the apprehension of criminals who don't come quietly. Whilst clearly I don't condone violence from the police, you can't expect them to be both interventionist and to come over all Mahatma Gandhi.

Well I think a nice touch would be the landscaping of a double decker car park at Sainsbury, with a permanent parking security force and nice clean bogs. Then: The pedestrianisation of the stroll into Lordship Lane Pedestrianisation of North Cross Road. Residents only parking on the roads surrounding LL Removal of all parking on LL itself Widening of the pavements on LL Widening of the cafe frontages on LL Deliveries only 7am to 8am and 7pm to 8pm Hanging baskets and benches

Well, you'd have to talk to Jimmy Two Times about that... ;-)

I can see your perspective Gallinello, but it's a little bit self-obsessed to think that Thatcher's single dirving force was the wholesale slaughter of 'the working classes' You predicate your argument on the grounds that Thatcher was from one tribe, fixed genocidally on another. Picking up a few of your words: "destruction, smash, slash, attack, civil war, hungry, skinhead, murderous, onslaught, ruthless, assault" all meted out on the working class by "the nouveau riche, the petty bourgeois upstarts and the yuppies, the city slickers and the wide boys" (Ironic of course that the 'wide boy' was the working class made good. ;-)) This is an embarrassing misrepresentation of history designed to divide society and generate conflict. You criticise Thatcher for 'no such thing as society', whilst recommending wholesale class retribution. Hypocrite is too small a word for it. Whilst you make many points that have value, the merit is lost in the spittle, bluster and contradictions. Whatever we may learn of the Thatcher years, it seems some people have learned nothing.

Well absolutely SteveT, but you're doing what everyone does in these debates, which is to take isolated incidents and try and make them commonplace. You're trying to characterise the police as a ravening mob, which is unfair. Our newspaper salesman was victim to a spiteful idiot who'd grown frustrated with other idiots but certainly did not intend to murder anyone. Our Brazilian electrician was victim to dedicated and resourceful services who were misinformed and had poor systems in place in response to a national panic. Blair Peach was the victim of a lawless society that involved a three way riot between Anti-Nazi's, the BNP and a police group modelled on the Stasi but since disbanded. If BBW had made a policeman fear for his own safety then CS gas and a baton to the knees would indeed have been a proportionate response. We should let him be the judge of that - and he seems pretty comfortable with his opinion. I should add that in the last forty years almost 400 UK policemen have been killed for taking up the profession.

I'm not sure what you're talking about now TLS. You asked whether kettling was legitimate, but now you're describing it as "being smacked over the head by a truncheon wielding horse riding officer of le law" What are you asking about, kettling or police violence? The fact that the two may occasionally happen concurrently is no reason to conflate them, as otherwise you'd ban football because of hooligans. Police violence is unacceptable in normal cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled to a proportionate response to crimes committed against them. Kettling is legitimate in the sense of being within the law, but may (as MP and DC point out) be a moral transgression. Kettling is not dissimilar to 'stop and search', since both entail the persecution of the many to curtail the activities of few. I'm interested in whether those who agree with the expansion of 'stop and search' are also those who disagree with kettling? It would be an inconsistent approach.

I don't think parents with children are a recognised disabled group, so Sainsbury's would be under no obligation to provide them with parking spaces. So logically, it's only a marketing gimmick. Sainsbury's obviously feel they retain more business from a valuable customer base by having them there. If they don't police it, then they must feel that the gesture is sufficient to attract these customers, who no doubt lay the blame for misuse at the hands of other customers rather than the management. Everyone's a winner.

It's a bit of an odd assertion, not unlike 'does the world need any more art/music/poetry' etc. They're all pastimes that lie in the 'self-actualisation' realm of consciousness. Hence humanity didn't objectively 'need' them in the first place - not like water, food, shelter or sex for example. However if you consider that art in its many forms is both a form of self-expression and a medium to interpret differing perspectives (empathy), then there can never be enough - for our experience, perspective and context is continually changing. Conversely, if you're just observing that the current crop of novelists seem to turn out a load of crap - well it may be down to several reasons: * New novelists haven't stood the test of time (in twenty years' time we'll only remember the good current novelists). * Cheaper production requires lower competence thresholds. * Mass accessibility and lower pricing of books means there's now a larger market amongst less discerning readers. * Increasing leisure time is allowing less dedicated authors to put finger to keyboard. None of that means that there aren't any good current novelists, it just means they may be harder to find.

I could have been asking whether Sean was keen to know cate, or whether cate was keen to know the moderators... only the comma could have cleared it up. I was, as cate identified, wondering why cate was keen to know the moderators. I think the only forums that I know where the moderators don't also post are the professional services, as opposed to the labours of love like the EDF.

I guess that moderation, like the law, should be applied without a view to the identity or status of the subjects. Keeping moderation separate from personal issues means that the moderators can act in the best interests of the site without bringing personal baggage with them. It also protects them from the few loonies out there who may take moderation issues out of proportion and seek retribution. The fact that there are a few of them provides balancing views and does a good job of keeping tyranny at bay, although in principle Admin isn't really under an obligation to do that. It's privately run as an act of charity ;-) Why are you so keen to know cate? If you felt you had a particular personal gripe, you should appeal through private messaging perhaps? Re. Sean, beware smoke and mirrors...

*stares at naked knee* *stares grittily at paleologus with denim scarf* *stares at naked knee*

The challenge with politics is that it's always placed out of context - as if the ideologies were unaffected by the other monumental upheavals in our lives. If you were to analyse the key influences on modern society, surely you'd come up with something more like: *Population growth *Mobile workforce *Universal education *Post industrialist technologies *Mass media *Pressure on resources Once you chuck those elements into the fray, then realistically the limited reach of any political ideology means most parties are p*ssing in the wind. Modern people are too well-informed to lead short, unhappy but well-behaved blue collar lives down the cannery, whilst the hoorays live it up on the proceeds. Whilst you could argue that unique individuals (such as Thatcher) can have an exceptional impact, there are those that argue that she was just a product of her times. If it hadn't been her, it would have been someone else. The same thing applies to criminal activity. It probably is a cluster, but probably not a random one. I recall that of the 680 crimes on the Bakerloo line 4 years or so ago, 600 of them were caused by the 4 individuals who eventually stabbed that young lawyer to death outside Queens Park Station. Those 4 were probably part of the random distribution of sociopaths who all happened to be up for a bit of rape and pillage at the same time at the same school. Quality policing should resolve it, because most of these criminals stay close to home. However, looking forward the minor impact issues like policing quality have, when compared with those six 'macro' issues, mean that unless we can find more coherent social structures to address these problems that it simply won't matter a jot - because there'll be nobody left to remember. 'Individualism' cannot solve these problems, because we're not biologically attuned to understand them. The market cannot resolve them because it's too short sighted. Most of these kids are frustrated because they don't have any individual self-determination when faced with the cards fate dealt them. Most of them pack it in when they grow up and see the options. Neither Thatcher nor Blair are to blame, but neither did they find any answers. Most societies work better when they have a collective vision - a target to strive for. I don't think either 'looking after number one' or 'join the commune' are going to provide it. It needs to be bigger and more engaging. Find that, and the street crime will fade.

Since the Kuomintang never recognised the validity of the communist usurpers, you could argue that both the Great Wall and the Terracotta warriors actually belong to Taiwan. Or you could argue that since both parties were shandy-drinking southerners, then both treasures are the property of the lineage of the deposed warlords of the north, and should be returned forthwith. The 'better to look after them' is a straw man EDOldie. No-one on this thread has used it. The only person I've heard quoted who used it was one of the geriatric loonies who occupy the House of Lords, Woodrow Wyatt, when he referred to the Greeks as 'bomb-chuckers'. He's locked in the 1920s, and won't be making the decision.

That was spiteful wasn't it? I recant.

Well yes, and that simplistic claptrap reminds me why we don't allow morons to set the agenda. Can I help you across the road?

You didn't get hammered by the forum, you got hammered by me. Whether I'm superior or not depends on your point of view. Yes I'm a prat, so bite me. Child.

Sheer not shear. Changes the meaning. One suggests you were overcome, the other suggests you deliberately manipulated the situation to cause a confrontation.