Huguenot

http://inhisrest.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/566045_good_grief1.gif

"We used to say Maggie may be a women but she is not a sister." *Looks for comfortable shoes*

I unhid UDT momentarily to find out what he was saying that was winding up Loz - my mistake. It's the usual unsubstantiated bullshit. In the 1970s home ownership was floundering at 57%. It's now at 71%. More people own their own home now than ever in history. "abusive employers, and increase levels of mental illnesses". Oh good grief. Legislation protecting people's rights in the workplace is greater now than at any time in history. Treatment of mental illness is the most effective than at any time in history.

I don't personally know whether they were guilty or not - but it is clear that everyone in the case (idiot coppers, prosecution, defence, expert witnesses, juries, judges) learnt that they were. I'm surprised that donohue or MrCheeky would want to let these guys go free for what is clearly a horrible crime just to cock a snoot at the 'authorities'. It's a shameful opinion. Yes, overturning double jeopardy does create a threat of poorer initial casework and vexatious litigation - but it has been used so few times that it is unfair to apply this suspicion in practice. As for HAL9000 shit-stirring, why do you do it? What is wrong in your head?

You were drinking when you woke up? I think that's a good reason to give up.

It's a bit wet though isn't it? http://urbanspectator.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5514b809488340162fc119e4f970d-pi

I couldn't finish it because I was too surprised by the leading nature of Question 8 to feel that it merited a response. The question is too unsubtle to be answered truthfully, it can only be answered by people either fulfilling or rejecting your premise.

I never enjoy smoking during the day, so I don't. I really enjoy smoking with a drink, so I do. Often go a week or two without having one, but never feel any obligation.

I think it's right that Klein tackles the question of whether free markets are intrinsically necessary to democracy. I'm just not sure that anyone apart from a noisy US minority had claimed it is - and I think they were confusing libertarianism with democracy. Democracy delivers rights through responsibility. Since there is a prerequisite for confidence in the system for this to take place, then democracy requires policing - and hence regulation. So really she was punting up a straw man.

LadyD, in South Sudan at the moment, the Lou Nuer and the Murle are conducting a quasi genocidal war mostly based upon the acquisition of each others cattle. This is not so a few power mad executives can get even richer. It's the stuff that people do to each other - man's inhumanity to man. Communist revolutions are just as bloody and unproductive as free market ones. It's easy to sympathise with your distress at the injustices in the world, what I can't agree with is your desire to twist and hack at things to make them fit your anti-global, anti-corporate, Marxist agrarian agenda. By misattributing blame for these human disasters, you not only make them insoluble, but you alienate the people most likely to find solutions and actually create yet more conflict.

If there are those too young and unfamilar with the history of the introduction of free market policies in the UK in 1979 then they can see the Conservative Manifesto here. The manifesto is startling in its aggressive tone towards the abuse of privelege without responsbility by unions. This was a view to which the British public subscribed and the reason why the Conservatives took power and free market policies and privatistion took root. I am impressed by the way in which exactly the same language about irresponsible abuse of privelege is currently being used against the 'bankers'. We don't change much do we? It's just the targets that change. Naomi Klein's central premise to the book and the film is that an elite group of oligarchs submit the population to shock tactics and social 'torture' to create free market opportunities they can exploit. The sequence of events in the UK at that time completely undermines this claim. Thatcher did not create an environment in which free market economics could flourish through the Falklands War, it was done before her time, and done by the unions. The evidence is that the political fabric of countries breaks down because of exploitation by interested parties of both the left or the right, and the rich or the poor. It is the demand for change that creates unrest, and in some few examples that change has been to free markets rather than managed economies. Klein has got the cause and effect arse about face. However, I recognise that historical accuracy is of little relevance when trying to ride a wave of populist rage against a ghostly enemy.

But surely the failure is what they're buying? The more they chuck cash at it, the more they can claim to have made an effort? It's a payment to assuage the guilt.

This one you can leave outside the oven so you don't have to open the door to check the temperature! Nifty eh?

Four strike days on the LU admist demands for 6 days off for every working day with a 'y' in it.

If you're talking about 'detention without charge', then in your highly informed position you will know the NDAA does nothing to increase the powers that the President has had for a decade (in the United States - why are you so obsessed with them anyway?). So no change there apart from conspiracy theorist proclamations. Regarding the UK, you'll know that in the UK it's currently only 28 days. You'll also know that the attempt by Labour to extend it to 90 days in 2005 and to 42 days in 2007 were resoundly beaten. You'll also know that no-one has actaully been held beyond 14 days since 2008. So talk of 'sleepwalking into giving up all of their rights' is so far from reality it doesn't even deserve drunkenly mumbling about, let alone shitting our pants?

How do you sift through the 250 million tweets per day to find the ones that aren't covered by the mainstream media but are still worth reading? How do you check them for accuracy? Is it possible that in fact the tweets you're reading are from self-selecting activists with little grasp on either evidence based reporting or discretion? Is it possible that these are in turn distorting your view of the world and reinforcing mildly paranoid suspicions to the point that they become "real"?

Klein herself says at the start that her work is 'an attempt to create an alternative history', which implies that her view is a selective interpretation of events to suit her own agenda. It's up to you whether you imagine this agenda is to save the world, or sell her books. As LadyDeliah points out, her history could reasonably be said to be based on 'available facts'. However, this should serve only to highlight how it's possible to alter 'facts' by changing your perspective, and changing their perceived hierarchy of cause and effect. It's clear that 'the way she links the facts available is plausible and compelling'. Of course it is - this is the nature of consipracy theorists everywhere. From Tower 7 to Area 51 - it's all about making it 'compelling' by being selective. There is no doubt that the US was involved in anti-communist activity both at home and abroad - it was the height of the cold war after all. There is no doubt that the CIA was active in Chile in protecting US commercial interests. This was the height of US imperialism, with wars in Korea and Vietnam underway. Allende was a Marxist embarked on nationalisation of industry. The US was obsessed with the Monroe Doctrine. However, it is a considerable leap from that to suggest that this is a Bilderberg conspiracy by a financial elite to take over the world using war and a new economic religion to advance personal messianic domination. The Joker and the Penguin were cartoon figures, not diabolic real life evil geniuses. The rise and popularity of free market economics in the UK was driven entirely by the unions themselves, who used collective bargaining to plunder the nation's economic capacity and then held the people to ransom through fuel and refuse collection. It didn't require the CIA to intervene. Organised workforces prove themselves as destructive and smug as any top-hatted Bullingdon Clubber. Just watch Bob Crow. It was the people, the nation that wanted change, no conspiracy was necessary. I also take rather obvious issue that Naomi Klein talks about a nation indulging in 'pure unregulated capitalism'. It is tedious and dull when both LadyDeliah and UDT take examples from the US to try and justify a position in the UK. The UK has been, and remains, essentially a regulated socialist nation that treats libertarian theory with the deep suspicion it deserves. Finally the longevity of irritating self observed Marxist idiots like Chavez should be clear enough evidence that motivations and approaches are different today. The war in Iraq wasn't a war on Marxism, but for resources. What does that mean? Well it's an interesting 'alternative history' (as Klein puts it), but painfully selective and highly distorting.

I'm sure that one of the clues is NOT to tell everyone else how difficult it is, how you really want one, and how you're struggling with it, and 'just about managing'. Instead, tell everyone else how easy it is, how you feel better, and there's really not that much to say about it... Tell people how you're quite happy to have a fag if you wanted it, but you don't really want it, and you don't feel stressed about it.

I thought she came out pretty well from the cabinet papers - certainly not the cartoon monster that people want to present her as (looking at you, LadyD ;-))

Are you joealessi in disguise? ;-) It's just a setting. These things are invariably solved by being systematic. I'm guessing there's a right mess between those signals you're taking through different channels and inputs, and those inputs you have applied to different outputs. Unplug everything. Really, EVERYTHING. That means the DVD too. Then just plug your TV back into the power socket and the aerial, and DO NOT PLUG THE DVD IN UNTIL THE TV IS WORKING NORMALLY. :))

That's probably where a lot of the cynicism and anger comes from.

acm was in the armed forces.

Is that a bit of a proxy war ianr? It seems like you're attacking woodrot on copyright because you don't like what he's saying about cats? Although you're technically correct on the copyright issue, it's not a substantive enough enfrigement to attract any sort of challenge.

You're probably drunk acm judging by the time of the post, but that kind of abuse is unnecessary. If you don't think that agrressive swearing counts as loud mouth dross, then there's no helping you. Can I suggest you do a quick edit and cut the foul language? Regards your points, all international trade policies have unforeseen or unwanted consequences - and the fact that you bring in the IMF and the World Bank is evidence of this fact. These are not EU bodies. There is no more justification for this attack on the EU than there is for an attack on any other international trade body, including the UK government.

For someone who has benefitted so much from the forum over the years, it seems to be both unwise and unreasonable to accuse Admin of favouritism and be 'ordering' them to reinstate posts. A friendlier tone may be more productive? As you know, bumping is not tolerated because it creates non-productive clutter, and older posts are removed because both the technology demands and the cost are prohibitive. If either of these were allowed the forum would be such a mess it wouldn't work for you at all. You also know that the forum doesn't have any full time staff and the Admins can only moderate the stuff they see, or the stuff that's reported. If this forum and the moderation policies didn't exist you would be much worse off.