pap

I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake.

Did you lose the ability to learn new things at some point in your life?

So is everyone comfortable with British residents relying on organised begging to eat?

Don't agree with tax credits myself. It's a subsidy to banking and corporations. On a related note, I love it when people debate finance as if it's real and set in stone.

Merely suggesting that we use the same mechanisms for forming the committee as we do when we want to try a member of the public; e.g. picking people by lot. All of this was perfectly evident from the surrounding text. Seems that instead of focusing on basic comprehension, you've decided that having a pop at me as a poster is more important. Talking about weird. Anyway. Great points, very well made. In decades to come, when we look back on the myriad and robust convictions, people will look back at your contribution and perhaps consider it the turning point.

The point I've continued to make is that I have no confidence in the inquiry doing what the public thinks it should do, which is presumably to root out, remove and punish those in the establishment guilty of abusing kids. There have been numerous occasions already when the integrity of the inquiry has been questioned. This ill-advised series of communications is just another example. We stand at a point where the alleged victims of child abuse by the establishment are prepared to walk away from what is ostensibly a vehicle for justice and closure, because they no longer believe that the inquiry is fit for purpose. My view is that you can't have the establishment investigating itself. It's akin to creating a trial jury using friends, family and fond acquaintances of the accused. That's why juries are random, and why people have to leave if they know anyone related to the case. The public should be setting the scope of this investigation, informed throughout and should also decide on the outcome through jury-style committees. With the establishment in charge, it'll be geared toward self-protection and damage limitation.

Perhaps we're approaching this from the wrong angle. It's probably easier to work out what not to buy, and then not buy one of those things. Here is a small list of things NOT to buy:- 1) Beauty book 2) Ironing board or any other bit of kit that casts your missus as house-cleaner. 3) Mínge trimmers 4) Bowling ball with "H. Simpson" engraved on it.

This inquiry is not even off the ground yet. Complaints from victims about threatening or unsubstantiated emails from members of the panel. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/06/theresa-may-child-sexual-abuse-inquiry-panel-accused-victims-letters FFS.

iPad or something, with the added bonus that you get a few years off afterwards.

All is pushing it, but you know what I mean.

Banning orders have been instrumental in keeping the worst offenders away from the game and deterring people from getting into trouble, but the most important option was off the list. The average football fan has changed. My generation and below are all video gamers. Many of them haven't been in a fight outside of COD, and parents are wiser to this sort of stuff these days too. I just don't think there's as much interest in the old hooliganism these days.

Was the purple offensive stuff on the LADS bible?

Good points about the cost of flying there. I frequently check road, rail and flights if going anywhere. As a single traveller, the train should always win. For London, it usually does. Air travel takes around the same amount of time, if not more. Cars are blooming useless. If you're not going to London, trains are usually a crap option. The East Coast line has done far better in public hands than it ever managed under private ownership. It has been returned to profit, but rather than see it as an asset for the taxpayer, we'll just flog it off. Has no-one noticed that arguably our most celebrated public transportation system, the London Underground, has also remained in public hands throughout? They've done all the things that private firms have done in terms of streamlining, etc. An abundance of lines and other transport options means that a problem on one line doesn't usually hinder the traveller.

Bought my last machine from chillblast.com, a firm based in Bournemouth. Very nice, and would get another from them. They scoop lots of PC Pro awards, and know what they're doing. Almost 2 years later, still playing everything at full res in high detail.

Charged by the FA. Faces a maximum five game ban. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-striker-mario-balotelli-8236631 It's an interesting outcome when compared with Nicolas Anelka's hounding out of the game. For starters, most had to have Anelka's transgression explained to them, whereas Balotelli's message was easier to see for the layman. Balotelli said sorry immediately too. Gotta wonder whether that factors in.

Did the survey, but tbh, don't really agree with any of the reasons for the decline in hooliganism. The average football fan has changed tons in the last 30 years. No longer a poor man's or a young man's pursuit. The recent survey on the average Saints fan bears this out. The other thing that has changed massively is attitudes to laddery and violence in general. My old man is one of the most intelligent people I know, someone that could have easily done Uni and more. Not sure that him, or many lads like him, were that interested in academia or non-laddish pursuits. I'm reasonably sure he liked getting into a ruck Forty years later, the geeks have inherited the Earth and the sort of things the old man and his pals got up to are seen as close to barbaric.

The inquiry is in crisis. Alleged victims have no confidence in the terms of reference, cut-off points or the fact that there have been so many conflicts of interest with past and present panel members. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alleged-abuse-survivors-threaten-to-derail-inquiry-by-quitting-9904500.html

We had a small opportunity to make Parliament more representative, which might have eventually meant that smaller concerns would have a say, as has happened in countries that have a more proportional electoral system. Don't get me wrong. AV was never PR, but if the parties-that-be were going to nix such a simple change with scare stories of dead babies and soldiers, then PR was never realistic anyway. I wonder how many incubators and how much soldiering equipment could have been bought with the tax-payer cash that Cameron spent on trying to ensure his banker chums could have unlimited bonuses. Anyway, in direct answer to your question, change won't be delivered by the ballot box alone. The only way a radical party gets to set the agenda is if things get so fúcked that even FPTP can't save the self-interested banker's acolytes. And if things get that fúcked, revolution is probably more likely anyway. Otherwise, it's business as usual.

Yeah, and I don't blame you. Everyone has been conditioned to believe that politics means more neo-liberalism, when it doesn't really need to be. Let's not forget that a mere century ago, people were debating concepts such as whether money should exist, or who, what and why certain groups should have the means of production. Today, everything is about the banking system, which limps along only because huge wads of public money were funnelled into it to stop it from collapsing. Soz, but that's just not good enough. The pattern seems to be repeating. Huge depresssions, followed by the governments du jour propagandising against the f**king poor, and not the greedy c**ts that got us into this ****. Putting it simply, the banking industry is a cabal of professional gamblers that needs to be significantly reformed. The only difference between them and real gamblers is that real gamblers don't have their losses covered by the tax-payer. We could be spending billions on improving the lives of our citizens. Instead, it's going back to pay the speculative debts of private industry. I'd say there are more options on the table than that.

I'm not sure that anyone save pensioners can be happy with the coalition. Parents and students got jipped through tuition fees. The poor have been jipped by the cuts, the proliferation of zero hours contracts, the millions of hours of free labour gifted to corporates. What else? How's about all the money Cameron and co have spunked on their anti-EU platform? I particularly like the cash spent on ensuring those hard-done-by bankers have no limit to their bonuses. Wasted money, as it turns out. Due to EU rules, bonuses will be capped at 100% of salary. We've spent more, got less and look to be heading toward a society which mirrors the one without a National Health Service. Bandit government, and if you believe any different, you probably think poor people and immigrants have been stealing all your cash.

It's not overnight. It has been over a decade, and it's still shít, it costs more, and there's no end in sight regarding the incredibly poor value for money. The idea behind having a functioning railway system is that it facilitates trade, travel and a ton of other economic activity. Since privatisation, it has become a parasitic leech that feeds off the captive market of those living in dormitory towns scattered around London. Still can't get around the North and Midlands, but the next big plan is the same as the last big plan. Get people to London quicker. It makes financial sense for those that are running the monopolies. They're certainly helped by the fact that London is getting to be nigh-on impassable by car (without about four hours of sitting in traffic saying fúck a lot). It's exactly what you'd expect from the private sector. Serve the rich and populous areas; screw everyone else. The point that you're clinging to, that we've managed nearly twice the passenger numbers, doesn't change any of that. Rail privatisation has been extremely poor value for money.

If I multiplied my ongoing direct costs budget by four, my capital expense by ten, it'd be a fcking disaster if I only got 100% growth for that level of investment.

So according to Tim, we're paying four times more subsidy, ten times more capital spend for um, twice the passenger numbers? Magic.

More cost, less revenue. Remember that Railtrack was privatised too, but had to be brought back into public ownership because the entire system would have collapsed if left solely in private hands. That is not a successful privatisation.

Wouldn't know, mate. I'm one of the millions that used to use the rail service but have been largely priced out of the market since. I do know that rail privatisation is a complete disaster and just a scheme to divest tax-payer's money into private hands, risk free. The bit that haemorrhages money still belongs to us.