Jonathan Ford

When you see a man whos been wanted for 10 years in your sights you shoot to kill

You shoot an unarmed old man in ill health, regardless of his crimes, you're a murderer.

Regardless of what's gone before, I'd argue that he was a bad man, and though I'd have preferred for him to be arrested and put on trial rather than murdered in cold blood, he made his own bed.

He made his own bed? That kind of logic would suggest that the US got what was coming to them on 9/11 for fucking with the middle-east then?

 

If any other nation, especially one not on the good side of us or the USA decided to send their special forces into a foreign country and take some fucker out without clearance there would be all hell to pay.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, particularly with the operation to murder Osama bin Laden.

The world is full of bad men, doing shitty things. I'd be more than happy if all the bad men, of whatever allegiance got what was coming to them too.

Added a blog post, that mirrors my own opinions.

Without wishing to align myself with big mickey, perhaps this particular "nasty foreigner" was a bad guy? The evidence would certainly seem to suggest so.

Wasn't he on good terms with the US during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

Absolutely. That's foreign policy for you!

Regardless of what's gone before, I'd argue that he was a bad man, and though I'd have preferred for him to be arrested and put on trial rather than murdered in cold blood, he made his own bed.

Who were "the bad men" that we were wanting to "get" in Afghanistan, Mickey?

That guy, what's his name? Bin Liner?

Ah, I see. So, you buy into the whole scenario of us being the good guys, fighting for the freedom of our people, whilst the nasty foreigners are the bad guys?

Without wishing to align myself with big mickey, perhaps this particular "nasty foreigner" was a bad guy? The evidence would certainly seem to suggest so.

 

Your best is a fairly low standard, you berk.

Kudos.

Different figures are flying around the internet, for both the cost of benefits and tax revenue. The best information I can find is that the cost of all UK benefits, including stuff like winter fuel payments, pensions, TV licences, maternity pay, as well as welfare benefits was approximately

Go fuck yourself, you miserable little cunt.

Bloody hell, Lister.....you kiss your mother with that mouth? :D

In my opinion, bailing out the banks was absolutely the right thing to do. The problem quite simply is that, with the current bonus culture, coupled with the kind of vultures that can be attracted to banking, banks that do not pay comparable terms will not be able to attract talent. Now, personally, I'd like those institutions that were bailed out by the taxpayer to perform well, and have a hope of repaying us! Therefore, I have no specific objection to them paying out humungous bonuses, as long as pursuit of a bonus does not encourage the very behaviours that got us in this shitty mess.

Homelessness is a tough issue, particularly for a Tory government. I'm pretty centre right in these issues, and would argue that homelessness rarely presents as an isolated issue, and I'll colour this by saying that I suspect I've met more homeless people and substance abusers than most. I genuinely find the case cited in the Independent article that roughly equated to "no work in construction = homeless" to be pretty hard to believe. The process for a landlord/mortgage company to evcit a tenant or repossess a home is pretty lengthy, and there are frameworks in place to prevent homelessness in these situations - even if it's a horrible room in the biggest flea pit "hotel" you could imagine. "No work in construction plus drink/drugs/theft/adultery = homelessness" I can easily believe. And therein lies the crux of the pretty simplistic Tory thinking on the issue - that all homeless people have unsavoury addictions or questionable morality alongside their homelessness. It seems that supporting these people out of these situations hasn't crossed their minds! I suppose, to your garden variety Tory, the behaviour of many people who are homeless has significantly contributed to their predicament.....so fuck 'em.

On the topic of cuts, every local authority can choose pretty much where it wants to make cuts. I suppose, seeing as homeless people may not be particularly invested in the political process and don't have a voice, they make an easy target. I will suggest, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up my point, that it appears that some authorities have it on their agenda to score political points in where they make there cuts. I'm sure that there are plenty of unnecessary committees and sub-committees that could either combine their meetings....or just bugger off...plenty of soft service that would have less impact than closing a library, for arguments sake.

The fact that such a massive amount of media ownership should be given over to one man would at any time constitute a scandal. That it is being done at a time when Murdoch

I've never understood, though, why people assume that the public sector HAS to be inefficient.

I don't think many people genuinely do, and it's certainly not a view I subscribe to. I do think the public sector IS inefficient though, and I would suggest that a lot of that stems from Labour's instinct that improved services come from increasing the measurement and control of expenditure, which has led to a massive increase in the middle management structures in public services.

The problem we face though, is that when the job cuts are delivered from above it most likely won't be the "middle-management" that faces the brunt of it.

Bang on. I'm one of the few people that thinks we should pay NHS managers more; then we'd get better managers and could have fewer of them with no noticeable restriction to the service. And the cuts are being delivered already...so many people retiring or leaving and simply not being replaced.

The public sector, generally speaking, is massively inefficient. Well, certainly the NHS is. As an example, I saw a piece of research a few months ago (think it may have been in the Health Service Journal, but cancelled my subscription due to the insane amount of spam they send) that found just one NHS trust bought something like 16 different types of A4 printer paper, from five different sources. Just the cost saving of buying it all from one place would be astonishing. If this procurement behaviour is replicated across the spectrum of everything that every NHS trust buys, from biscuits and paper clips, through medicines and dressings, uniforms, beds......the implications are enormous.

He's effectively saying the coalition are responsible for the high youth unemployment/disatisfaction due to cuts to public sector jobs and benefits. Ignoring the fact that the jobs that would have been done by school-leavers 10-20 years ago are now largely being done by immigrants.

I think you have to be very careful in this area. The fact is, that many people in this country, the disenfranchised people that were discussed earlier, have no interest in working. I suggested months ago that I'd rather go out and work for

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

Nope. What I'm saying is that this is just another example of the distance in the modern perception of rights versus responsibilities. A person may want a child, but if they can't afford to support it then they should be more responsible than simply having it and expecting government to foot the bill.

So why are these young girls getting pregnant? Is it to deliberately rob us hardworking taxpayers of our money and get free houses, plasma TVs and so on? Or is it because they come from broken homes, workless families, they have no aspirations, no self-respect, they are under-educated and have no real hope for the future other than that free council flat?

 

So how do we stop their kids from turning out the same as their 16yr old mums and their 32yr old grandmothers? By investing in their futures through child benefit, Sure Start, Bookstart, child tax credits, free activities in libraries, investment in schools, health education, and so on. These are the very things the coalition are taking away. They won't make things better, they will just perpetuate the problem.

 

Human beings won't stop having children, no matter what carrots or sticks you try. All we can do is try to make sure those children have a better future

And here, in theory, lies the solution. Everything starts with education, or so you'd think. The problem with vast swathes of those that soretooth describes is that they don't see the need to change. Generations live on benefit because they see no alternative, while not actually looking for an alternative, and so the problem perpetuates. The problem with making misery bearable is that it doesn't encourage change. Got fags, got booze, got TV = happy. One thing I have learnt is that you cannot change someone who does not want to change. Now, before David jumps in to try and put words into my mouth again, I'm not suggesting for one second that we don't support those who need it. What I am suggesting is that without fostering the attitude that strives for upward mobility, I see no end to the problem.

Tamsin Greig from Episodes and other good stuff.

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

 

You're always good for a bit of a laugh, Happ.

 

Why don't we just impose something similar to what China have, except only on those who earn under a certain amount per year? How does that sound?

Do you not think that it is socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world, planned or otherwise, if you do not have the means to support the child?

The only part of that article I disagree with is doctors being fearful of speaking up - they have, and do, but their concerns have clearly not been registered. They have a union but of course cannot strike because they put their patients welfare first. Which is a shame because that short-term compromise of patient welfare would be a drop in the ocean compared to what the government's reforms have in store for us all.

Trouble is, doctors are genuinely fearful of their careers if they speak up. The way dissent is generally managed in the NHS is to suspend the dissenter, interview colleagues (pointing out how quickly they could find themselves in the shit too), review records...find the remotest, smallest most trivial piece of shit to pin on them, and use this to destroy careers. Meanwhile, these abusers are without oversight and are generally promoted for their efforts.

Take the "jobbygate" scandal; a Scottish junior doctor calls (quite rightly) one of the architects of MTAS (a scheme that has destroyed training for junior doctors) a "fucking shit" on a private forum, and is drummed out of the profession for his trouble.

Jobbygate - start reading from the bottom.

Excellent blog post regarding proposed changes to the NHS, from economist Richard Murphy:

I have been talking to GPs

I'll see your golf shot and raise.

It is unlikely that any harm, aside from a few scrapes and bruises, would have come to Ian Tomlinson if he did not have cirrhosis of the liver. It is very likely that considerable harm would have come to anyone hit by a fire extinguisher thrown from a height of seven stories.

Another quality bowling display - maybe a bit short at the start but much more in control by the end. Pitch is already turning a bit too which should make things interesting.

Well, I watched until about 10 overs after lunch, and it was looking a bit touch and go when I went to bed. Watson was striking the ball well, and Kawhaja looked pretty threatening on is test debut. I though Anderson looked particularly stinted.

Hopefully in bed by 1am tonight

Night then.

As one of the Sky team (possibly Atherton) mentioned, it wouldn't surprise me if they drop Collingwood for Broad when he's fit. Move Prior up to 6, followed by Broad, Swann, Bresnan to make a decent lower order.

Notwithstanding Bresnan's efforts in the evening session yesterday, I thought Tremlett was absolutely outstanding. For about 4 overs before tea he was totally unplayable, and it was only Strauss' limp-wristed field setting that let him down.

Hopefully in bed by 1am tonight

I'll freely admit that I don't know as much about the case as others, as it means very little to me. What I can see is:

a) a left wing Scottish politician was accused in a tabloid newspaper of extra-marital shenanigans;

b) said politician took the newspaper to court, and won;

c) it transpires that the politician lied under oath to secure his earlier win;

d) politician is soon to be getting a whole lot more sex, whether he likes it or not;

e) supporters of said politician seem to be claiming a fit up, despite the fact that the politician was convicted by a jury of his peers.

See where this is going. Of course, it is of great interest that he may be the first Scottish person to be tried for perjury (which I find pretty odd, to be honest), and that others may or may not have presented inconsistent evidence. It does not alter the fact that Sheridan lied in court to protect his dirty little secret, and has been quite rightly prosecuted. I would be saying the same if it were a Tory, a Socialist, a BNP member, or my wife.

Agreed. However, there are plenty more that have been found guilty and are just that.

Just seen the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan case

 

So David, you were saying? *whistles*

You're right.

 

Being found guilty in court is a definite sign of guilt.

You undermine any further point you wish to make right there.

If you were to swipe some of the text from that xmasisevil.com website, and stick it on the BNP website, no-one would notice.