bridge too far

And here's a well-balanced article that people should read about immigration and the long-term benefits it could bring to us all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/apr/23/migration-emigration-uk-dorling

No - treat them in the same way as you would any person with an illness, whether it's physical or mental. But in secure conditions (for their safety and that of others) especially if there's a chance they would reoffend if they were on the outside. It doesn't have to be inhumane at all. The guy who confessed was one of 17 I think. And obviously had some personality disorder or a low IQ. You think that's a reason to murder him?

Well, for a start, nobody should be locked up 'like an animal'. People found guilty of heinous crimes should be deprived of their freedom for the set time and that time should be used to re-educate them, both in life skills and to help them understand the enormity of what they'e done. If they can't understand that what they've done is wrong, then they're probably mentally ill and should be hospitalised (albeit in a place like Broadmoor or Rampton) until they're cured or until they die - for the safety of others. People guilty of less serious crimes shouldn't be locked up (I'm thinking fraud, theft etc) but should be subject to properly controlled community orders. If they're put in prison, the chances are they'll learn how to commit further crimes. But. whatever the crime, there is a possibility of release if either a) doubts are raised about the soundness of the conviction or b) if it can be shown that they have genuinely changed their ways. Murder them and there's no way back for the innocent (thinking of the guy who 'confessed' to killing the barmaid in Southampton all those years ago when he hadn't done it). And murdering them is sinking to their level after all.

But how can you (not you personally TDD - people in general) sit in their ivory towers saying murder is wrong. And then condone someone being murdered. Surely 'you' can see that's hypocritical at the very least?

If we think killing and / or torture is so repugnant, why should we allow it to be practised legally in the form of capital punishment? If it's wrong, ergo it's wrong. We should be able to subscribe to a higher moral code than 'an eye for an eye' if we are as intelligent and advanced as we like to think we are.

You miss my point. My last (rhetorical) point was that "You think unrestrained extremism is OK on one 'side' but not another?" I CAN say Muslim extremists without any qualms. I can also say neo-nazi extremists if I want to. To reiterate - "They might attract a slightly more sympathetic hearing if they just simply removed the word 'Islamic' from the bit I've highlighted. Unrestrained extremism of any sort is reprehensible in my view." That might widen their constituency or, if they didn't remove it, demonstrate what many seem to think - that they are an extreme right wing racist organisation.

I see you didn't answer my final question

Last time I had a splinter in my arse was when I was in cabaret and spun round on my BTM on a wooden stage. What about you? What part of my post do you disagree with then? You think unrestrained extremism is OK on one 'side' but not another.

They might attract a slightly more sympathetic hearing if they just simply removed the word 'Islamic' from the bit I've highlighted. Unrestrained extremism of any sort is reprehensible in my view.

+ another 1

Poopey have lost Worst start by any Premiership club ever LOL

That's PFI and, whilst I'm against it in principle, to proceed with a PFI build it has to be demonstrated that the annual 'payments' (these cover maintenance, catering, cleaning etc. as well as rent) are cheaper than if nothing had been built but services (including maintenance, catering, cleaning etc.) had continued to be provided from old, dilapidated buildings. The idea of PFI was thought up by the Major government (and that is a fact, as the scheme I was working on at the time had a moratorium applied during the 1997 election run-up). Sadly, the following Labour government decided to continue with the idea. The main issue I had with PFI was that the private sector consortia secured funding at an initially high percentage interest rate. This interest rate was renegotiated once the buildings were built as the risk decreased. The additional 'profit' that accrued was kept by the private sector. This has now been addressed and this profit is shared between the private sector and the NHS. Most NHS buildings these days are Treasury funded. They are called LIFT projects or P21 projects. PFI consortia are unable to attract investment in these 'troubled times'. I hope that explains things for you Nick

Marvellous! Glad you've found something funny - hope you continue to have a good weekend

It does. It's just that some people don't have the intellectual ability to read and understand it, used as they are to corny 'pun' headlines in the Sun and its ilk.

It's the same thing as mass hysteria. Talk about it enough and the gullible will believe it. I'm a cynic and was happy to be totally unaffected by it.

Slight difference A in that a bobby will be writing down events pertinent to an arrest or caution s/he may have made. I wouldn't expect a ward clerk to write up medical notes either

Because if you'd read my posts thoroughly you would have seen that I explained that: a) there has been a large increase in capital spend. This is for new buildings (of which there have been many - I know - I was a Project Manager on a huge one in Oxford of over £100m) and for new equipment. There comes a point when it is cheaper to renew than to retain and maintain. Many health buildings had been allowed to deteriorate in the 80s and 90s and were unfit for purpose. b) pay increases. My posts were primarily explaining how non-pay spend for day to day items has been targeted to decrease year on year and, in my experience, this has happened. Is that clear enough for you?

Shame on you Mr H I've been doing the clinical trials for 6 years so, no, I don't think it's that. My granddaughter and daughter have both had this throat malarky and I look after my granddaughter once a week so I guess that's where I got it from. I still can't talk. And how can I get lonely when Mr TF's on nights when I have all you lovely lot to 'talk' to?

Meh

I don't think it's that at all. The Guardian has always given us a good press - I just think it was a bit tongue in cheek. If anything, it has a pop at he who shall not be named.

I didn't feel popped

Do you suppose some of that bail-out went on 'knicker allowances' at £90 a night? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/sep/17/knickers-90-pounds-lawyers-allowance

Just seen Paine get one in his groin. Didn't he also get one in his gentleman's vegetables at the Rose Bowl last week? God didn't design men very well, did he

Here's an interesting fact I learned the other day. Apparently our debt % GDP is not as high as it was after WWII. Then it was 80%! It IS more cost effective to have everyone in work. Just think about it logically. However that does bring problems. Firstly, workers have better wage bargaining strengths (supply and demand and all that) and secondly, if some of those employed are on very low wages, it behoves the rest of us to support them through benefits so that their cheapskate employers don't have to.

Come on Nick - you can't have it both ways! On the one hand you moan about public spending and then, when I show you what actually happens when cost targets are achieved, you say that's stupid! Which one do you want. It's your money they're saving. There always was a rush to 'spend up' at the end of the fiscal year. You ask any supplier to the NHS. My ex-husband had a furniture factory that produced the sorts of chairs you see in waiting rooms. They always had to gear up for the March rush. The difference this time is that if the target isn't reached, the Trust / department is punished anyway. So there's not quite the incentive to spend up now.