pap

I'm with Virgin and it's fairly pricey. tbh, apart from the broadband, don't really use it that much myself. Most of the package is for the family. Sky have been feckers in the past though and I don't really trust them. The odd thing is, they'd have still had me as a customer if they'd have given me a HD box but they were charging £300 for them at the time. Decided to drop them then and get the biggest broadband pipe I could. Apart from live sports, I don't watch broadcast TV, so it has worked out nicely.

Well, we're not getting rid of money anytime soon. It's just too damn handy. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen floated is that new money should only ever be created to pay for new infrastructure, as opposed to being created on consumer whim. I'm a big fan of public ownership of utility companies and the railway network - kit and caboodle. A big opponent of private firms running healthcare and prisons. I'd like to see more local industry, less commuting, more focus on addressing inequality. If EDF can make over a billion in profit from the UK, a nationalised industry itself, then I don't see why we can't do what the French do. Yes, they're loaded up to the nines with nuclear power, but we could feasibly do the same or even better, lead the way in research into alternate energy sources. There's that infrastructure money. I dunno, it just seems like so much of human effort is redundant and that rampant, unending and self-feeding consumerism isn't a sustainable or equitable way to run things, especially when infrastructure is turned into a private sector product or chock-full of private sector companies ferrying their shít along the motorways 24/7. Most of all though, public money should be used to serve the public interest, not to prop up failed institutions or sell the health service off to corporations.

I'd dispute the fact that democracy is working. What we get is an agenda of a particular party, in recent times delivered come-what-may by presidential style cabinets. Blair and Iraq. Cameron and the NHS. The direction of travel is the same, more and more stuff run for profit - leaving more power in the hands of entities that really don't give a fúck about the lot of people. They don't care that people need local jobs. They'll happily move a factory to Poland, Turkey or the Far East if it improves the bottom line. When it comes to important issues, like whether to go to war, whether we should toss banks huge bailouts to cover the losses of professional gamblers, the only regard governments for the general public is how they're going to manipulate the general public into believing a shít sandwich is a steak supper. They do a very good job on many. Look at the influence banking institutions have in our lives now. You need a loan for virtually everything, because virtually everything is priced to meet the available credit out there, a particular problem during the unsustainable housing bubble. And almost everyone accepts it all as a point of truth. Banker's wet dream undersells it somewhat.

The rules make absolutely no sense*, but it is a class film. I've never looked at a microwave the same way. *(everything except midnight is AFTER midnight)

Agreed. It is a problem that has gotten worse and is probably getting near to breaking point. I don't think we're that different from the US in the regard of most policy benefiting the elites. Even things that appear to be a benefit to the poor, such as Working Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, and the New Home Build plan are actually a subsidy to the rich and big business. Many of these career politicians are thinking beyond politics, and which cushy number they can expect after some policy they pushed through "accidentally" benefited a corporate benefactor. We need a channel for normal people without rabid party affiliations to enter Parliament to moderate the excesses of the ideological vandals. I know that is supposed to be the job of the Lords, but we all know that when push comes to shove, they can be easily railroaded if the government of the day really wants its way. It has repeatedly shown itself to be ineffective in moderating those excesses where it really matters. Personally, I'd create another 200 MP slots that aren't tied to constituencies, designed for non-partisan independents. Full voting rights, and I'd probably go somewhat radical on the means of selection. When someone first becomes an MP, it's more a reflection of the campaign they fought than any real notion of whether they'll be any good at representing their constituents. Why not have people apply to become MPs like we all do in the working world, and let the public vote on a shortlist?

I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hard Core History podcasts. Anyone with an interest in the Great War really needs to have a listen to the Blueprint For Armageddon series. It covers the entire war period, but does devote some time to the Yuletide fraternisation in 1914. Was never allowed to happen again; the generals made sure of it.

A good job? A shame, actually. If this was a conspiracy for publicity, that'd make you an unwitting pawn in Brand's dastardly schemes.

Picked up Monaco (£1.07), Broken Age (pricey @ £7) and Flight Sim. Tis the season where PC gamers get to lord it over their console only brethren. Steam sales are ace.

It has not been great lately, but what has there been to be excited about? It certainly doesn't help that SMS usually has a fair percentage of away fans in the home end.

Brand's response to paella gone cold person. http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/ Pretty classy, I reckon.

Chased this down for you. Respect For The Unemployed did the leg work. The 78% figure represents Lords and Commons. Not sure where they are getting their figures from, the information is exempt from FOI requests as it constitutes personal information.

I made the point about the 78% of MPs being millionaires because a millionaire is unlikely to perceive the world in quite the same way as someone struggling on the average wage. That goes double for those born into a life of privilege, and have never had to share the concerns of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

I think the big difference is that Brand has actually been poor at some point in his life. It's a far cry from the old money that is making a mint from the privatisation of almost everything.

This is an interesting article from the US. Political scientists reckon that the elites get their own way, and if you're not part of that group, you're effectively powerless. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/04/21/oligarchy-nation

Why is it either or? This is not a case of anything being mutually exclusive, as my point about changing the voting system should have illustrated. Representative democracy can be a fúckton better than it is today. 78% of MPs are millionaires. How representative is that? We had the spectacle of Aitken going to chokey and still retaining his position. How represented were his constituents while he was serving time at a soft nick? The right of recall would have sorted that instantly. The electoral system is also a fúcking joke. Our resident propagandist, now joyfully unemployed in that sector, loves to pull me up on my claim that the British public are morons. Let me add to the legend he's trying to spin. If you voted no to AV, you're a fúcking moron. You're actually worse. You're a thick self-basting c**t putting yourself in the oven for Christmas, or you're so enamoured by the self-interested arguments of the duopoly that you voted no to help them. Still a fúcking moron.

Oh aye, sir. That's why I let this comment sit unchallenged for days. Insecurity.

Make a YouTube vid and have hundreds of thousands of people watch it. Anyone can do it.

You've proven that you're talking crap. More than good enough for me. Bowl overarm next time, mush.

RB's point is that voting legitimises a system which is run for the elites, and that by not voting, you deny it that legitimacy. The smallest attempt at reforming the voting system was turned into a scarefest. When the Labour Party asked for my help in campaigning, they didn't want me to speak to people in Liverpool. They don't matter. They wanted me to go to Warrington instead, because it is one of the few places that votes do matter. No-one asked us if we wanted to have two wars, or pay 45bn of public money to save a group of addicted professional gamblers. No-one asked if we wanted to become part of a federal state like the EU. No-one was asked if we wanted to privatise the NHS. Representative democracy is at best, the chance to pick your dictators, assuming you live in a place where your vote matters. At worst, you're just expressing an opinion. There are better ways to do that. I actually agree with the spirit of your post, but practical implementation renders it redundant.

My argument was based on your claim that anyone can do what he does. You are anyone. Do what he does, or moderate your hyperbole.

Try it then. Let's see your version of the Trews.

RBS contractor doesn't like Brand shocker. Thanks, trousers. We've all learned something new today

You're playing it incorrectly. The combat is not about button mashing. It's the opposite. One hit per person usually, keeping an eye out for counters. Slap them once, then move in the direction of someone else. I know they don't go down in one hit, but they get knocked back, and you are usually pretty powerful by time you cycle back to them. Made the same mistake myself throughout most of the first game. When I sussed the one hit thing near the end, the difference was so pronounced I immediately replayed it.

UK based extremism has been in part driven by UK foreign policy in the Middle East. I keep repeating the stat, but 1 million people estimated to have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and counting. There were cynical voices from the start saying that the war was unjustified, illegal or all about oil. Two million people took to the streets in protest and a number of government ministers resigned their posts because of disagreement with the policy. It was wrong from the start, based on our fabrications and information extracted from torture conducted at the US' behest. Iraq had nowt to do with 9/11, no interest in dealing with those kind of people and no weapons of mass destruction, yet people were tortured until they said there was a link. Fancy that. I'd imagine those voices would be more cynical still if they were speaking on behalf of relatives in the region affected by this turmoil, or been subject to organised groups like the EDL, or seen British citizens spirited away to Guantamano. I'm not condoning any Muslim joining up with ISIS, but it didn't happen out of the blue. A positive from all this is that the US is still free enough for such uncomfortable introspection. As for the practice you're defending? It led to false information that became part of the case for the Iraq invasion, unwittingly parroted by Colin Powell, who had not been informed of the source of the information. It has reduced Western credibility, especially when we wax wonderful about freedom, democracy and due process. Take a look at this Washington Post article, listing the 10 most harrowing excerpts from the CIA report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/09/the-10-most-harrowing-excerpts-from-the-cia-interrogation-report/?Post%20generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost The problem with some of the justification on here, such as saying that it's only sleep deprivation, or it's only waterboarding, is what happens next after those techniques fail to work. It's a slippery slope and you've already stepped over the edge.

Don't know why more places don't lay on tea and coffee. Completely missing a trick when Starbucks et al are charging £3 a pop. Maybe they are afraid of the potential scalding lawsuits.