bridge too far

I can understand a medical supervision order. Many, many years ago, my son suffered from petit mal (a form of epilepsy) and he wasn't allowed to drive for two years, despite being on medication to control the condition. After two years, and an EEG, it was determined that he'd 'grown out' of the problem, and that's quite common with young people. So now he drives again, doesn't have to take any medication and has never had another occurence. Petit mal doesn't cause fits; rather a 'spaced out' feeling.

So what are you suggesting, exactly? That MPs shouldn't be paid, or if they are their parties should pay them? Or that they should donate part of their salary to the party they represent? In either scenario, minority parties wouldn't have any chance of representation, would they? And, like them or not, in a democracy they have the right to be heard.

Yep good idea. Let's ensure that the House of Commons consists solely of wealthy individuals who will truly represent the people of this country. Not.

Was it the enda your friendship?

I think the banking regulation argument has been rehearsed before. Firstly, Thatcher and Regan were the ones who deregulated the banks in the 80s and secondly, the banking crisis had its roots in the US, not the UK. The UK, along with with Europe, got caught up in the tidal wave. But I do agree that every government makes mistakes and it is to be hoped that they learn from them. If we judged potentially future governments on past records, we'd never have a government to believe in, ever!

How far back do you want to go? Any current government will say the previous lot didn't do stuff they should have done. Labour said the same about the Tories who were in power a lot longer before Labour. History accumulates.

Um, surely if you're not married then you're single?

Reading the link that Trousers posted immediately below yours, I can't see that it will help CSI. The North One contract was cancelled by the FIA, and the FIA awarded the contract to Eurosport. So Eurosport will pay the FIA, not CSI/North One.

I'd put good money on him for the future.

Wasn't the father of one of them a notorious gangland drug dealer? I wonder if some people who knew stuff were frightened of the consequences of giving information whilst the two of them were outside?

I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to put such a slant on what I said. I wouldn't choose to have 10 children - I found having three tough enough. I was trying to understand why they would be in a situation where their culture considers it OK to have so many children. That's why I cited their likely religious beliefs. In the same way as many Catholic families in this country have large families. I do understand that they are in this predicament NOW because they have so many children. As were my Catholic friends (from a nice middle class family hit by the recession in the 80s). But, as I said before, no-one has twenty-twenty foresight and, equally, no-one has the right to tell them to ignore their religious beliefs because it doesn't fit with our ideals. It's not like they're asking any of us for help, is it. You are a heartless lot, some of you.

All I've been trying to do is to try to understand why they are in this situation. I'm also thinking very much of the children, none of whom is at fault here. I suppose all cultures could go down the Chinese route and limit families to two children............

They're not asking for support. They're explaining why they are having to put some of their children into care.

Two points: How do you know they couldn't afford those ten children when they were born. The article indicates that his woes are due to the Greek economy. Who are you to deny this family the right to their religious beliefs? I might think the RC church wrong (or, in the case the Greek Orthodox church) to tell families they mustn't use contraception but if they choose to follow such a religion who are we to crticise them for it.

I think you're missing my point. As I pointed out earlier, some families are large because of religious beliefs and whilst you and I might go against such a religion if we felt it irresponsible, not every family thinks that way. For example, I know of a RC family who had four children. At the time the children were born, they could easily afford to raise four (he worked in the film industry). But then, in the 1980s, the film industry went into decline and he lost his job. Not their fault and they couldn't turn the clock back. Luckily they scraped through and of those four children, two are doctors (one is a surgeon), one is a lawyer and one is a computer scientist. Lucky for us they were born really. Ten does seem excessive to most of us, but in other cultures it's the norm and is usually manageable. No-one has a crystal ball.

It's all very well berating people for having more children than they can afford. I bet the majority of people only have more children if they think they can afford it based on their current circumstances. OK there are exceptions to this for a number of reasons, but generally it's a truism. But many of those who thought they could afford to have another child or two could not have foreseen that their income would reduce or disappear, that their cost of living would rise whilst their wages didn't etc. etc. It's a fact of life that once you have children, they're with you until they're adults. In that time, anyone's circumstances could change beyond belief. I know this - I've been there. And a lot of people will 'be there' in our country too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16395019

SentENCE FFS sentEnce!

I guess, like Roman Catholics, they subscribe to the principles of their religion and church http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12279632

I think it means that's how long AS A MINIMUM they'll be incarcerated before they're considered for release on licence. And that licence can be revoked if they re-offend.

Minimum and that's very important. Mansfield QC suggesting that they will stay inside longer.

I have a twitter account. I never tweet.

Great news and a good weight too! Well done all of you and all the very best x

Interview with AA on Solent tomorrow morning, apparently. Going to talk about a potential buyer Funny, I thought AA was the Administrator for CSI. So presumably any money paid for PFC will go towards the creditors of CSI?

It seems that the chief financial officers of leading companies fear the collapse of the euro. "Deloitte said that CFOs believe a collapse of the euro would have a severe effect on UK businesses, causing a new credit crunch and causing major swings in asset prices and exchange rates." "CFOs are now working on the assumption that Britain will fall back into recession. They see a 54% chance of a 'double-dip', up from just 27% a year ago." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16385525

But you would expect those in authority to try to understand the motivation behind the murder of a child, or a sexually motivated murder, or a gang related murder, or a murder for financial gain. Society needs to understand ALL motivations, so to say 'does it matter why' is a form of denial IMO.