bridge too far

This has confused many in the media who are reporting that public sector workers get their state pension at 60. Currently this is true for female workers but then it's also true for female workers in the private sector. Currently, some female public sector female workers can collect their pensions at 60 but the majority don't because the majority of female public sector workers are on low wages and, since their pensions are linked to wages and length of service, they stay on until 65 (or beyond now) to boost their eventual pay out. I note that there has been little comment on the huge (and I do mean HUGE) pension pots of senior echelons in the private sector (although their workers don't get such gold-plated deals). You and I pay for these enormous pensions each time we buy goods / use banks / use services provided by the private sector. Instead of knocking the public sector pension provision, shouldn't we all be agitating for improved pensions for ordinary workers in the private sector?

^^^^^ StuOx Well said that man! I was going to participate in this debate but you've put it all so succinctly that nothing more needs to be added. Apart from the fact that, currently, public sector pensions ARE self-funding. Many years down the line that may not be true but don't be swayed by the hysterical comments of the right-wing press. If people pull out of the public sector pension schemes because they can't afford them, they'll only have to be paid pension credits etc when eventually they do retire and that'll probably cost a fair bit more. The BBC has published a fact sheet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13775278

There's something very creepy about Gove I think. Tell him I said so

If they're so loaded, why are they buying the club on the never-never? Something's not right here.

I'm sure I read the other day that aid to India will stop in 2014?

Maybe he had some issues.

It's not a question of 'would I have let' as both daughters wouldn't have done so anyway. If they'd wanted to? I probably would have advised them that they were sending out the wrong signals because a (very) few men resort to animal behaviour. But at 16 or 17 they would have made their own decisions. You see, I was watching some pop video this morning. Remember I used to be a cabaret dancer so I'm well used to the idea of not wearing very much. The girl singer in the video was wearing far, far less than I did when I was dancing. And what happens? Blokes go 'phwoar' and some young girls think that's the way to dress to get the attention of men. They're almost expected to dress provocatively if they want to get a boyfriend. Girls invariably dress to please their men rather than themselves. If they dress down, they're called fuddy-duddies or lesbians or other such derogatory names. And believe me, no young girl likes to be thought of as unattractive. They just have poor role models these days. But I still maintain, and I think this is borne out by facts, that rape isn't actually about sex. It's about power and revenge - hence the reason why we hear a lot about old ladies being raped.

But can you not see that some women feel they ARE being blamed for being raped because of what they wear? Do you not want your wife / partner to look attractive so that other men think 'lucky bugger'? For ever and a day women are encouraged to look sexy and appealing and then get the blame if that causes them to be attacked. No one tells men that they shouldn't dress in a way likely to lead to assault.

I think one or two of you need to be careful that you're not seen to be 'excusing' rape because I'm sure you don't mean that to be so. I can see that this might be interpreted as portraying the poor male, who can't control himself, as being the victim rather than the woman (or man) and I'm sure none of you would want that.

In the grand scheme of things, no we don't. But as an advanced and rich country all we can do is compare the plight of OUR poor with what would be considered a decent standard of living. I've just read this article. It's about a hard working family who are really, really struggling: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820 Of course, it's primarily about inflation here and inflation affects poor people the most: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13757680 I think it's very sad that a family, used to supporting itself albeit on low wages, should find itself in such a predicament. But you're right - all things are relative.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011vnls/Poor_Kids/

So have a go at the OP and not me then!

But it would take me a year to trawl back through all the posts!

I didn't spark the debate. However, like many on here, I put in my five pence worth in the interests of sensible discussion. Sadly, some chose to trivialise the whole subject.

But the Canadian policeman who sparked the whole protest obviously did "The protest movement was sparked by a Canadian policeman who advised students to "avoid dressing like sluts" to avoid being victimised" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

Post no. 40000!

I want to be .............

Another point worth considering is this. As in our country 100 or so years ago, parents in many third world countries have a large number of children because of the limited life expectancy. Go some way to eradicating disease and there will be less need for large families.

I refer you to this: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30756-Land-of-the-free-umm-no-not-really I'm sure you'd find this solution acceptable.

That's your opinion, to which you're entitled of course. There was a lot of sensible discussion on the tangential argument about whether or not what women wear makes them more susceptible to rape.

Read the thread, sunshine. Read the thread.

Do you know, I was so dizzy from keeping up with all the ConDems spins and U-turns that I almost missed this. Well done Dave!

Isn't it a shame that a sensible discussion about a serious matter has descended into infantile comments.

Indeed it is. And I'm not sure at all how legislation can be introduced to ensure that convenience or will-chasing doesn't feature. I guess doctors have to have a significant say in the matter. If it were to become possible and legal, I would certainly consider writing a 'living will' stating the conditions that would have to endure before I could be put to sleep. And that a doctor would have to advise that those conditions had been met.

I think everyone's pain or suffering is relevant to them Mick. You and your family are suffering in ways that we didn't and, to some extent, I understand how hard it must be for you all to see your mother as she is now. My dad had a major stroke that left him like a child. It was devastating to see this proud, highly intelligent and successful business man reduced to the behaviour of an infant. I often wondered if he actually knew how things were. I also often wondered if he was given an overdose of morphine. That's not an accusation, it was actually a relief that he died. Given all I've said earlier about my mother's problems, there was no way she could have looked after him. And, if he'd gone into a nursing home, she couldn't have visited very often as she couldn't drive. It's great that 'we' are able to keep people alive longer but I do seriously wonder if sometimes it's not as good as we like to think it is.