pap

Didn't say it was nasty. Said it was unfair. Also full of people that can't read

Qualify your concept of sexual satisfaction, Alps. Is it sexy times with the lady, or do you simply refer to being able to tug one off without being caught by the fam? People have different thresholds, y'see. Every newspaper, every year, be it Henman, Murray or Rusedski (that's how desperate we were).

And yet a far cry from what we were 60 years ago, when we genuinely cared about our citizens. Do fair societies go around invading countries that haven't done anything to them, against the wishes of their people? If we're so fair, cool and all that, why have so many countries wanted to fúck us off?

Completely. I love the way we can only pick our head of state from one family, the way that millions of voters are disenfranchised. Recently, I've been most encouraged at washing the poor out of London. Gotta make room for those Russian oligarchs and Arab sheiks.

You're just píssed off because you have to go back to Fred Perry for a source of male national tennis pride. For an indication of just how long ago that was, check here:-

Swingball? Fúck off. That's my swingball now!

Asks for more information when it's still there! Changes the subject to something I've been discussing for six years. For your next trick, rub a couple of ten pound notes together for 24 hours and let us know how many children are born.

No, I picked quite a few examples. I really don't know why people bother with retorts like this. Defeated by the scrollbar, mush - whether you selectively quote or not. With no further thought as to what comes next, which is why you've dodged every serious point about enforcement, what happens to the kids, what happens to the parents, etc. How much money is enough money? Surely we can't rely on an unstable job market to see these people through? They could be a burden at any minute, so give us all a figure that you think is a guaranteed safe amount so that the kids never be a burden to the state. So instead we have the thriving of the richest. Look, you've had a go and I'm sure you're very proud of your contribution, but if you're going to wax faux clueless on what is a very simple point; that someone's natural ability to have kids trumps the requirements of a 300 year old central banking system, then there's no point in continuing this discussion, particularly when you've no follow up points for your fantastic "stop poor people having kids" idea.

Hmm? Burn Salmond!

I didn't know you lived in such a hive of scum and villainy, VW. Is it like Eastleigh?

rUK KFC http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scottish-independence-man-finds-piece-4270767

I think my country is the greatest on Earth, but I'm biased. Just don't like the people that run it.

No; many do. The list is endless, but would incorporate any sort of money being spent on a specific group of people, youth clubs. I could put a real Tory head on and argue that as a bloke that barely gets ill, with a family much the same, I'm paying too much for every bugger on the NHS. I'm not using it. I'm healthier than those people - not a burden. Why should I pay? I'm not using it. We pay because we want it if someone we care about needs it. Similarly, and imo, we should pay for kids come what may and ensure that they have a decent standard of living, whatever díckheads their parents happen to be. Failing to support the kids leads to more problems down the line, and if you take the I shouldn't pay for someone else's kids to its logical conclusion, kids will end up starving. We've already got people reliant on foodbanks, simultaneously a vile indictment of government policy and a testament to the generosity of the British public. It's against nature to say that something naturally capable of conceiving a child is not allowed to conceive said child, based on your own beliefs. Because that's what your funding bollócks is really about. Centuries ago, "funding" involved being able to hunt your own food, FFS. Goes against empathy to want to deny support to kids based on your prejudice toward their parents. Sometimes, yes.

1) Time. 2) Attention 3) Putting long-term interests of kids ahead of your own Three straight away; you agreed with me. Everyone has their cross to bear, KC. There are plenty of things I can never do. I don't spend my time worrying about the tax I pay funding those that can. A question I've posed on here, and to my MP. You are. You're going against nature. You are saying that someone that can have kids shouldn't have them, because of their position in an ostensibly arbitrary (but actually rigged) financial system. Who the fúck are you (or anyone) to say that someone should not have kids, even if they can? God?

Implied from your statement that Katie Price's wealth entitles her to have offspring. Got no problem with rich people having kids, as long as poor people have the same rights,. Well, let's see. She uses her kids as trophies or publicity stunts, uses the relationship with whichever father to get her plastic arse in the media. Peter Andre running around like a blue-arsed fly picking up all the shít she can't be arsed to do. Plenty of ways to do that which don't involve market-inspired eugenics. Not sure if you've been around for the last couple of decades. Most of my mates are nearing forty. We had a much easier time going to Uni, our parents had it even easier. Not everyone goes (obviously) so we're not talking about the same people. I'm talking about the phenomenon whereby people are trapped on benefits, because they can't afford to pay their rent without them. My solution would be to attack the housing market, not start playing God and let the state dictate who can have kids. Housing costs so much that we're paying working people benefits. I'd suggest that lowering the cost of living is a more humane way to deal with poverty.

Personally, I lived in hope that he'd become the finished article, something I'm not sure is going to be any easier at Liverpool. Said all along that they won't be as patient as we were, and let's be honest, wasn't really an atypical performance from Lallana last night. Indecision, poor final ball, knackered before 90 minutes and ultimately frustrating. We were prepared to let that shít slide because on his day, he's close to unplayable. LFC just can't afford as many off days, and their fans won't put up with it the way we did.

Nuke Edinburgh? They prolly won't work, y'know

Alas, no - but then, neither am I delivering up the universal set of English people either.

Still a factor now. The PM called the experiment "egregious".

Untrue. Only two post-war general elections would have gone differently.

Plenty of evidence to back it up. Check the "robust" positions of the No supporters on here. Like the Poll Tax?

The idea that the market knows better than nature. That financial stability should be some kind of pre-requisite for having kids. That you approve of a celebrity cum-bucket like Katie Price breeding because they've managed to accumulate enough wealth not to be a burden on the system. I picked an extreme example. The old dear wasn't financially stable when I was growing up, nor was I when I started having my kids. Neither were many families on the estate I grew up on. If the poor were prevented from breeding, most of my mates wouldn't be around and neither would I. Yes, and what stunning work she has done of raising them. Then make sure the kids aren't in poverty and that their parents have an opportunity to escape the benefits trap, without throwing money at the problem. That'd be a generalisation too far. Some of the brightest and most driven people I know come from wealthy backgrounds, but compared to the amount of can't-be-arsed, won't-take-responsibility, dad-will-sort-it-out-anyway people I've met from the same background, they're genuinely exceptions. If we are going to qualify what makes a good parent, let's identify what really works. Time, attention and the prioritisation of your kids' long-term interests. If you can't provide those things, I don't give a f**k how much dosh you've got in the bank.

I don't know why you're responding to me when you could be selling Batman the Tower Of London.

From the Guardian's live feed. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-salmond-and-darling-interviewed-on-today-live#block-54194f23e4b0cf0f0c9e13a9 Wholly gullible, Batman!

Private Eye nailing it again.