Brendan

Why can't the NHS be run as a corporation independent from political/government intervention? With a strict charter and legal obligations obviously. Like the BBC. To my mind the 2 things that redeem the entire British nation are the existence of the NHS and the BBC. The one works very well because it is able to keep at arms length (to a degree) the tide of sub-human slime that are the political classes while the other seems constantly fraught with peril because it can?t.

Could we sell Scotland to China?

Gosh! I didn?t even realise you were under attack.

I recently heard someone describe the church as having been the medieval equivalent of the EU. Which fits well with the medieval world view where the right to govern was granted by God. How you ruled was entirely up to you had divine licence to do as you pleased. The church has been politically superseded in most of Europe but still remians as this sort of extra-governmental (is that a term?) organisation. It?s like a rogue NATO using an arsenal of fear and superstition to bind the unsophisticated to its cause so that it can continue to exist. Although the use of a religion to propagate a sense of nationalist belonging amongst a population subservient to a disconnected ruling aristocracy and compliant to the requirements of an expansionist, baby-killing empire isn?t particularly big or clever either.

Catholics don?t really practice any of the stuff the church says anyway. Particularly the no birth control thing. We just don?t mention it when the priest is around. Just like you don?t tell your granny when you?ve been smoking crack. It?s a bit like all that believing in god business.

Anecdotally my wife has just gone back to working for the NHS and is appalled by the lack of care she as a midwife is able/allowed to give to women and the amount of energy spent on box ticking and arse covering. So much so that she?s going to leave again the first chance she gets.

Abominations often dwell at depth. Don't ask me why. Maybe they like it down there. Nothing like a bit of cyber stalking (done on your behalf but I'm sure without your permission) to devalue a good crush.

Do I have to attempt to make an argument against some sort of one-size-fits-all management that is as effective for salesmen as it is for teachers and nurses or can I just make a face of aghast indignation secure in the knowledge that most sensible people will agree with me? Look. This is my face being aghast and indignant.

So I win on the basis that anyone who criticises the prime minister can't be wrong.

I barely notice it to be honest. It's certainly never given me wind before.

Anyhoo, let us once again to Star Trek. The split infinite never bothered me too much. I just assumed they forgot to put the commas in. What bothers me is the concept of, ?Space - the final frontier.? A frontier is the area where your stuff ends and another bit of stuff starts. You can always push further into the other stuff (as long as the UN doesn?t stop you) and then you will have another frontier. So a frontier isn?t final unless nothing exists on the other side of it. Now this is possibly true of space, if you mean the sort of existence-balloon of space-time that houses our reality. Perhaps nothing exists outside of this but perhaps something does and we just aren?t able to perceive it. Which is all very well but it is as much a final frontier to someone sitting in a barrel of pilchards in 18th century Ipswich as it is to people in matching pyjamas in a spaceship in the far-flung future. Trouble is I don?t think that is what they meant at all. I think they were talking about the places outside of the earth?s atmosphere that you have to wear pyjamas and ride a spaceship to visit. Like Saturn and Hollywood. There may be new frontiers out there but final ones? Well maybe if you suddenly come up against the end of space like a big wall. But that doesn?t exist apparently. It?s all supposed to sort of fold in on itself. Isn?t it? Or have the men in white coats and old jumpers changed their minds again?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try to would be grammatically correct latin but > though English is influenced by latin, it isn't a > romance language. > It's more a sort of germanic-latin hybrid with > bits of brythonic thrown around Yeah I know this. You know I know this. I know you know I know this. It?s not the rules I?m worried about, logic is what it flies in the face of. But your apparent acceptance of this illogical idiom happily implies approval of my idiomatic use of infer.

To try to do something is to attempt to do it. If you are so certain that you are going to do something why first state that you are only attempting it. Try infers the possibility of failure. You might get it wrong. Well you might. Not me. I get things right first time. But nevertheless this world is populated by the fallible who are bound to cock it up at least some of the time. Ergo I am not speaking Latin when I say try to just covering my bets. Or maybe I am. Why would a Latin grammatical structure not be correct in this instance? It sometimes is. A Germanic structure would be more like, ?I will try for that to be achieved? And stop being racist. EDIT: What edit?

No! Try and instead of try to anonys me. Problem is everybloodlyone does this including me. So I suppose through sheer forces of consensus try and is supposedly correct. Although 34 years of experience have taught me that I?m normally correct about everything. Well near as makes no difference anyway. So consensus can suck eggs. It is a relatively small annoyance though so I?m going to try not to notice it.* *Not, ?try not and notice it?** **Pillocks

She said which was included if you haven?t anyway. Much catastrophe in beguilement for Inverness sentience summer events. Perhaps yes.

http://www.malawivoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/desmond-tutu.jpg

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 5. Does anybody really use two instead of to? 2 b sure.

Sorry haven?t read all the guff. I?m too left-wing and flaky. Are left-wingers more intelligent because they are the first to call the other side stoopid through the medium of academic journal?

I don't suppose anyone knows why their website has suddenly started to make my browser crash? Is it something to do with Johann Harri?

Maybe Pakistan are just really good when they aren't throwing matches.

There was a drug in the last Baskervilles episode which renders the subject susceptible to suggestion. Could it be that he gave this to Watson, convinced him that it was him jumping but actually threw the other body off? Has this theory already been discussed ad nauseum?

That's the Greek name for a football team from West Bromwich.

What's the word for, "meaning of numbers"?

So when Ireland joined the party, some 200 years after United Kingdom of Great Britian had formed out the union of Scotland and England, it was known (to protestant Europe at least) as the Kingdom of Ireland. I didn't know that. So it all comes down to the meaning of words which is really just semantics.