Brendan

Ah come on Mathew. I was waiting for them to get onto who fingered who behind the tour bus.

I don?t think its? really that sort of place.

You do realise there?s a chippy just across the road.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have an attitude to alcohol in this country, > unlike any other european country, that is purely > cultural. I don?t think that?s necessarily true. I?ve found Europeans, especially Germans and Southern Scandinavians are just as partial to a slurring booze up as the British and Irish are. Here are some stats on European drink consuption: http://www.heartstats.org/temp/Figsp7.9spweb07.xls There will always be the problem of alcoholism which exists in a portion of any population that consumes alcohol. We can take that as read. The issue that seems to have crystallised though for this argument (thanks largely to the popular press) is that of alcohol related bad behaviour. This is caused by a deeper lack of respect for self and others in people. Alcohol isn?t to blame for this it just lower people?s inhibitions so they show it more. It is the same lack of respect that means smarmy cunts in business suits push onto trains in front of women and older people and take their seats or that makes people let their dogs foul the pavements. Booze doesn?t make these people anti-social, they already are. Booze just lets them show it more clearly.

Is this where I get one of those Dioralyte Toasters?

It won?t stop chronic alcoholics from getting their hands on booze it will only stop those who can take it or leave it. They may decide to leave it if it is costing them too much but they aren?t the ones causing the trouble in the first place.

Quite possibly. I read in the metro this morning that they were just resting Broad and that Fin got a bowl as the second choice. I?ve harboured a bit of a dislike for Broad ever since I saw him backchat an umpire but I think he is the best choice for an all-rounder England are going to have in the foreseeable future. Apparently it was only a tenner to get into Lords yesterday.

Is it your window?

Not to belittle what the guy must have gone through in his life regarding his sexuality and the motivations for what he did but for someone who is supposedly such a genius he seriously miss read the public mood at the moment. Did he not think this would get out or that considering what has happened over the last year it would not (quite rightly) cause him no end of trouble? The Telegraph is just the Daily Mail with bigger words though. Borderline xenophobia and homophobia with the odd bit of patronising the poor thrown in to make its readers feel righteous.

These guys fought back well today. There may still be a game on here.

That is a poser about PR. Ideally you want an MP who is part of or is at least connected to the issues of the constituency they represent so that their activities in Westminster are not just towing the party line but take some cognisance of how things will trickle down to the people. Which is one of the arguments against PR. But then you get the situation in the safest seats where the party that holds sway parachute a candidate in because they have a plan for that person in central government or somesuch. These sort of people may not know or care about the things like local discrimination against homosexuals, how a gang culture developed, who should traditionally open the summer fete or the drainage in the lower fields and you oddly end up with the situation where the most loyal to a party are the ones being short changed by them.

IKEA No wonder people in Croydon stab each other.

And my motivation isn?t necessarily out of hatred for landlords. They aren?t worth my hate for the most part. It?s is out of concern for their victims. My apologies but unlike most people in this world I give a dam about exploitation and injustice. And believe me there are victims by the hundreds of thousand around this land and just because people are unaware/out of touch or want to wash over reality in order to appease their own consciences doesn?t change the truth.

Nobody been laughing? Come on 'tinterweb's full of this sort of shit,

Building a crib and a toy box and placing them expectantly in the nursery.

Your points would be valid if that was what is actually going on around us. I wasn?t suggesting getting rid of the private letting sector. There is a need for it but the reality of what is going on in the country at the moment is that private rental is not only providing for those people who need and choose to rent because of their circumstance. The proliferation, especially in London is forcing more and more families who should have access to private home ownership to become perpetual tenants. This is why all the preasure groups and articles in the press etc. The reality is if you rent a house out in London now you are renting it to people who are forced to rent. People are exploiting this, some of them wilfully. That is not forgivable. It may be legal but it is in no way moral. Not allowing people who already own a home first choice at the same properties that people trying to buy their first home are competing for is not rigging the market it is just making simple, sensible rules regarding lending. It?s just like telling someone they can?t drive their car down a cycle path. The issue of social housing links in to social equality and the gaps in pay between the richest and poorest. In a country with a small gap between the richest and poorest (which is generally considered healthy in a first world democracy) you don?t have a need for much social housing. The need for so much of it in this country is because we have to hang on to socialist aspects of the economy in order to compensate for the inequality. Socialism rarely works and is ultimately self defeating. In my mind it should only ever be used as a means to an end (rebuilding after war or redressing serious injustice). I?m not suggesting getting rid of the safety net but giving those who even though they are permanently employed are forced to live in social housing a way out. If that means that we have to take a hard look at redressing the pay difference between the highest and lowest paid then so be it. If we did that we could then also more easily have a simple, flat rate of tax.

It?s not really a free market though is it? It never has been except for people who buy property for cash. All that needs to be done is rules put in place to create a situation where owner occupiers are favoured over landlords and heavy restrictions or bans put on buy-to-let lending so that you get a situation where 10% of the market doesn?t go to landlords who then rent it out to the poorest 10% who as a result will never have access to homes and consequently end up exponentially poorer. (Not to mention the patronising vileness of the idea that someone else should be ?providing? housing for another family like some sort of feudal lord) This is not radical or unprecedented it is just sensible and done in many countries all over the world. In fact many people would say it was the intention over here in the first place. The market will be a reflection of what the people in the economy can afford and not an over inflated, contrived economic driver in itself that is liable to come crashing down around our ears as has recently happened. I would go further to say that there is no reason why people in full time employment in this country should have to rely on the state for housing. State housing (except for the essential safety net) should be sold to owner occupiers at a price they can afford. If the reality is that the bottom rung of families are expected to live off an income of ?10K a year then the bottom rung house should reflect the market and cost those families ?40K. And that my friend is about as fair a conservative policy as you can come across but those who use the veil of conservatism to disguise their antisocial nature would wail injustice at it because it wouldn?t allow them to exploit other decent peoples' basic needs for their own personal gain. (edited because I really can't seem to fucking spell these days)

And nor should it. If Boycott ever gushed stickily over some young upstart, even if they were the new Bradman, every godly cricket fan would have no other option but to take the gentleman?s way out.

:)-D

Afternoon beer buzz and listening to slayer.

What the fuk's that?

SA 2 Columbia 1 and that?s a team who get knee capped by drug lords if they lose and once had a goalie with the biggest box in the world. We?re gonna have the lot of you come this world trophy thingy.

I was arrested at the cricket once as well. At the Wanderers when I was a student they used to let us take as much booze in as we wanted too but they didn?t like it when you smoked controlled substances in the stands. AAhh. See, look at that, we?ve bonded . Cricket?s nice innit.

Just found out that I can pick up my wireless internet and use my landline handset from the front room of the pub next to my house. Working from home just got a whole lot better.

I think it was a great example of the value that an institution like the BBC is to society. In so many countries in this world the ruling party would be dictating to the broadcaster which member of the opposition they could invite. Hopefully it really pissed off those in the conservative party who would have the BBC scrapped in favour of their minister for propaganda Mr Murdoch?s Media Empire.