Brendan

This ?could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king? shit is the same as an employee saying to their boss that the boss has no right to see any of the inappropriate correspondence they have been sending and websites they have been browsing on work time and using work equipment because it could damage their chance of promotion.

Next thing people will be suggesting that the uk should have a referendum to leave the eu.

Hoover proximity?

It's coz they is socialist innit.

Sounds great i Will take five ta. It's not all makes and soda anymore.

The cynic in me thinks because he probably had some dirt on someone that he can't dish now that he is dirt so to speak.

That's just too depressingly close to life. Although I can't afford a hat.

The wind cries Mary - JH

If that makes sense...

Typical pampered liberal snobbery.

Not that it is true. It could be said that it was what BJ was impying.

Quids that entire post was just an excuse to call you a middleclass conservative. It was meant in fun take it that way.

Sound more like a backhanded insult to the electorate to me. What the stupid proles actually want is an idiot ruling them innit.

I think it?s awful. The middle classes using the busses!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - over the past 50 years our economy has trebled > in size, our welfare budget has gone up seven > fold. Is this the 50 years ago when there were council houses for all and you could actually afford to eat food if you were forced to live off the dole? Is the lot of someone relying on welfare today any better? I?m no expert but it would seems not. So if the spend on welfare is proportionately higher now then why? Could it be because there is less money available to people to live off so there is a proportionately higher percentage relying on welfare? If so how can that be? What else has happened over the last 50 years? The wealth of the very top few percent of people in the economy has increased at an exponentially higher rate than the rest. Logically that would leave a large portion at the bottom with less and consequently a higher welfare bill. How much the economy has grown is not that relevant as economies generally don?t grow without the population growing as well. This all leaves you with a conundrum. Do you: a) Take the money away from the rich to fund the welfare budget essentially just patching a broken system. b) Do nothing and watch the ghettos grow and the crime rate skyrocket while you put an electric fence around your house. c) Try to cut to the bottom of it by legislating against the activities which allow the more powerful to exploit the less powerful financially, enforcing equitable employment laws and forcing profit to be pushed back into the economy. Chances are whichever government is in power will do a bit of each to try to keep the whole house of cards from falling down without upsetting their financial backers. They will of course be telling us that they are doing all and none of these things depending on what they think we want to hear. So where does that leave middleclass conservative like your good self? Well you can either; a) Blame everyone else except yourself, they obviously don?t work as hard as you and are deserving of your scorn or, b) be a ?realist? about it. It?s terrible but some people are going to have to suffer. This will make you feel very clever while maintaining a moral high ground. After all chicks dig a man who knows how to make the tough choices just so long as he isn?t living in a hostel with his 3 children.

Don't be a dick.

I've always thought snorky (or whatever he's calling himself these days) would make a good host for Newsnight.

If my mum and dad had the choice to make me glow in the dark and didn?t do so I would never forgive them.

Swinging a cricket bat around indoors will probably only result in you breaking whatever it is they are trying to steal.

Ag ja but I've heard he's a doos.

Nobody would sell me a pint in 1991 so that doesn?t really count now does it.

Five Great* British Pounds they want now. *Don't know what's so great about them. Jin cuo dao now that must have been pretty great.

Or is this just Battersea?

Less than ?2. That's less that 200 pence. Or 100 tuppence if you like.

Stripped of autocratic regulation it will only be a matter of time before the forum becomes a plaything to small group of unaccountable elites. They will no doubt argue that that laisezz-fare approach provides freedom. The fact that it is a freedom reserved for their closed circle will not be mentioned.