pap

That's fine up to a point. However, I'd like to challenge the notion that people must be okay with it because they signed a contract, for two reasons really. First, it's not really a choice for a lot of people. Need money. Find job. Sign contract. Quibbling really not a good move at this point. Second, even if you are 100% fine with the initial contract you sign and your responsibilities when taking the job, HR departments and sweeping company policy changes can change your role to the point where it is quite literally not what you signed up for.

They're building a core of yes men to push their plans through. There has never been any swerving from this course. I was getting offers for work for private sector companies taking over NHS services for months before anything was official. The basic plan, with pretty much everything, is to feck public institutions up and send the private sector into rescue, thus lining the pockets of as many pals and future employers as possible.

Mixed feelings on this one. In the case of the Relate officer, I think the employer should be able to reasonably assume that a new hire would be available to assist in any of the cases they handle. I can also live with jewellery being banned in certain professions when there are practical reasons for doing so (the nursing example). That all said, I do feel as if employers have an increasing expectation that their staff should be emotionless robots. That certainly can't be good either.

The issue of legality is key. Kofi Annan said that from the UN's point of view, the war was illegal. From a UN charter point of view, the war was illegal. A point of view is different from a declaration. To do that, the UN needs to get the a member of the UN Security Council to make a determination. This action can be blocked by any permanent member, the UK and US included. The veto powers of the permanent security council members keep the UN pretty toothless against them. Much as I think it should happen, not going to. Perhaps every other member of the UN should leave and join United Nations II. As long as the Netherlands joins up, we're sorted for use of the Hague. I rather like this statement from the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg:- "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

I don't think we'll be relegated. I'm not happy with the nil points situation, but I agree with many of the sentiments in the OP. We did play well against the Manchester teams, and if a couple of our woodwork whackers in the Wigan game went in, this thread wouldn't exist. We'll get our run of luck, and I think it's premature to write off the defence just yet. Stupid mistakes yes, but we've seen all this before. We can learn from mistakes - it's only if our players truly lack the capability to survive that we should be worried. Nige's philosophy is that everyone is a defender when you haven't got the ball and we've got new players all over the pitch. As anyone who has ever hired anyone can tell you, one appointment makes a massive difference in a small company, and that new hires take a while to spin up to full effectiveness. Same is true of footballers. The team will defend better as a unit over the coming weeks, although with a new CB, might get worse before it gets better. Bit of luck, bit of form and improved match fitness - and this board will be a lot rosier.

For anyone who has read all the books, and is very geeky about GoT, you have to look up R+L=J. It is a theory doing the rounds at the minute. It's not a spoiler as such. There is a lot of evidence in the books to back it up. But feck, if it's true, it'll be awesome.

A little simplistic. We were fairly certain that they did not have WMDs, which is why our Government lied to pretend they did. Can't fault your conclusion though.

Terrible appointment. Like many, was surprised to see Hunt retain his old job. Reading between the lines, sounds like they want an implementor for their "carve up the NHS for private profit" plan. Hunt's comparative lack of scruples (source: rattlesnake) makes him the ideal appointment for the Conservatives' plan, not so great for anyone who has a "health". Bandit government.

Lord D, you should stand for Parliament. That is u-turning of the first order. Well, maybe second order u-turning. But still very good.

The options at the time were Blair, Michael Howard or the Lib Dems. I do share your view that self-interest is at the heart of voting, but it's worth pointing out that also, there were no credible, electable alternatives. This is why I find the "people must have been ok with Iraq 'cos Labour got in" argument to be codswallop.

You seem pretty obsessed with Labour. Why don't you move on, Lord D?

Been done to death during the AV referendum, Lord D. Thread is still there

For clarity, I'd really appreciate some indication of my particular brand of ad hominem arguments? Am I using circumstantial ad hominem, like your point about Labour winning the 2005 general election meaning no one gave a feck about Iraq? Or is it the abusive variant, like your claim that I'm an odd little man? (not taken as an insult btw. You are 100% correct and I'm very happy to be odd.) Your argument was specious, mate. But that's cool - cos lashing out after losing an argument is fairly commonplace on here too.

You're right. We do need to move on. The problems that we have created in the Middle East through what some will perceive to be wars of aggression are going to be around for some time. The West has played into the hands of those that seek to radicalise others, creating horrors that transform radicalisation from a process to a nudge. Someone who has friends or family that were killed as a result of indiscriminate Western fire is not going to be a hard sell. We've made things worse. On Blair specifically, the real question is why did he fabricate the evidence? Surely the whole point of sexing up the dodgy dossier was to make Saddam look more dangerous than he was, precisely because he wasn't dangerous enough. The real reason that Blair made a load of sh!t up is because Bush and pals needed justification for "pre-emptive war". Saddam wasn't going to start a thing; knew he'd be annihilated the minute he tried. Stalemate really didn't suit the Bush administration's bone-on for invading Iraq, so they pulled the old trick; if you can't prove an enemy is dangerous - just invent stuff and make them look well 'ard. Blair was particularly handy because he could at least maintain some sense of impartiality, but the whole world and his chien knew what was going on. I'm actually a pretty patriotic person for a left-wing mutt, Lord D. I'm not one for Gods or Queens, and I certainly don't support every decision of the Government, but I do love us Brits when we're at our best; polite, savvy, stoic, and independent. We could have offered genuine wisdom here; instead we rolled over, gave blind obedience and the veneer of legitimacy to an illegal war of aggression. Germany and France obviously had the balls to stand up to the US. I genuinely wonder why we didn't. So, moving on. Do you think that might best be accomplished by continuing to pretend that Bush and Blair did nothing wrong because of the "inherent morality" of the countries they led, or perhaps recognising that our leaders might have made some terrible decisions in an effort to build fences with parts of the world we've ruined?

That is a jolly good point, Jonnyboy.

Film based on a board game. What could possibly go wrong? I hope the only thing Liam Neeson said to his crew mates outside of the acting was "where's my cheque?"

You really lining this one up for me? Why thank you sir. You are indeed too kind. Are you honestly saying that Blair's 2005 general election is tacit approval or acceptance of his Governments' actions in/leading up to Iraq? Your argument basically boils down to "because the untested Lib Dems (the only major anti-war party) didn't win the 2005 general election, no-one cared about Iraq". Specious, K.

As I said in the OP, the plans for invading and carving up Iraq pre-dated 9/11. Link

Didn't vote for Labour again (in any election) until 2012 - and I have voted in every election, local, European and general. It's a bit simplistic to equate Labour's 2005 General Election win with tacit approval of dead Iraqi babies and war crimes. First, most people will continue to vote for the status quo if they're doing alright out of it. Second, there is a jingoistic element that will vote for anyone seen to be pushing British power. My A level politics teacher used to canvas for Labour. Back in 1983, he thought he'd be able to count on the vote of anyone that was unemployed at the time. The reaction he didn't expect, heard many times, was that people were going to vote for Maggie, because she'd won the Falklands. Also, don't know if you remember the post-911 age too well, but I certainly do. The politics of fear and propaganda coupled with an attack on civil liberties (and hey, we said we'd never let the terrorists change us). War criminal wasn't a term you heard at the time. I doubt it even crossed most voters minds.

Would have taken 2-3 beforehand, but I'm genuinely miffed with that result now. Like others have said, subs didn't work out. Blooming annoyed that we came out of that with nowt.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, respected anti-apartheid campaigner and slang for undergraduate mediocrity, has written in the Observer this week. Though his tone is less sensationalist than the title of this thread, his thoughts are clearly articulated. Cards on the table; I think the GW Bush administration was the closest thing that the US ever came to having an honest-to-god fascist party. As someone who comes from traditional Labour voting stock, watching Blair kowtow to this bunch was one of the most sickening things I've seen a so-called Labour party do. I thought Afghanistan was a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut. Doing what they ended up doing eventually (surgical strike) would have been better, but it was justifiable on some level. Not so with Iraq. Blair lied to create a pre-text for war, long pre-planned, at the behest of Bush. I'm with Desmond on this one. They should be pulled up before The Hague. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq

It's not really taking the p!ss. He took the p!ss in court when he pretended to have been born in 1860.

Might be newly promoted team. But that still covers us. Eek

Next couple of months are going to be make or break for Nigel. While the league position remains as it is, he is going to be the subject of constant speculation. He's never managed Premier League before and the team are in the relegation spots. I know it is premature and all that, but that's about the level that the media operate at. I don't think it's a bad thing. Though I hate to say it, being scared of your boss, your job, or in Nige's case, your overall credibility as a Prem manager, might not be an entirely bad thing.

I've been pottering around the Internet this morning and have gotten myself a little more wound up about this one. Southampton vs Man United is precisely the sort of game I was looking forward to. When they go our way, they're brilliant. When they go our way So yep, big opportunity for all the lads, particularly those who'll be fending off new arrivals, to make their case for continuing selection. That's a good thing. The one stat that keeps winding me up is this "no team that has lost its first three games has survived". I'd love to beat that stat. Would love it even more if we didn't have to. COYS