revolution saint

I suspect that until you are in that situation most people wouldn't know what they would do. It's all very well saying I'd kill 'em, tear 'em apart, garrotte them with a shoelace, slowly burn them to death over a toaster etc etc but the fact is I simply don't know. I suspect I would cower under the covers and only find out the damage in the morning. At which point I would tell myself that if only I'd been awake I would have confronted them, killed them, garrotted them with a shoelace etc etc.

Too early to make any decision over whether this was reasonable force or not - not least because we don't actually know if it was the homeowner who did the stabbing or not. It could just as easily be the burglars fighting amongst themselves or an accident. We don't know where the stabbing took place, we don't know why the burglary was taking place at this particular property, we don't know if the burglars were known to the residents, we don't know if this was gang or drug related, we don't know if the murder weapon has been identified and who owned it. Far too easy to make snap judgements but I think I'll wait until some more facts come out.

In terms of fan expectation neither Pahars or Ekelund were low key. I'll give you Marsden though.

Have to be honest, based on what I've seen, I wouldn't pay 2.8M for Sharp. That said, I've really not seen that much of him and Adkins will certainly know a lot about him so, if the rumours are true, then you have to back the manager on this one.

Can't say I've heard of him but anyone who has either influenced or worked with Billy Bragg, Eliza & Martin Carthy has to have something about them. RIP. That article does show how close knit (or incestuous) the folk scene can be.

To be honest I haven't been Cortese's biggest fan but this kind of thing makes me happy. There's a lot of stupid prices being quoted for average players - we do need to strengthen but we don't need to spend over the top for them. If we're ****ing off agents then we're probably doing something right and didn't Blackpool refuse to deal with agents? Didn't do them any harm and I'd guess we're not being as extreme as that anyway. I think we will get better players in, but at this level we still have no guarantee that more money = better player.

Never really rated her "dinner party" style music, though she's probably talented. Turning up like that is an embarassment though.

And Blatter worries why people don't think FIFA are serious about tackling corruption? If anything this makes them and Warner look even more guilty. Warner will probably be back in a couple of years as well. I'd definitely support boycotting the Quatar World Cup - it's going to be a joke tournament and they should never have got it.

Great idea and maybe we can combine the main board into just one football thread as well? Honestly, what did you expect from a thread with a title like this one has? Of course there will be a degree of tribalism but there are also hidden amongst that some good points. I think for the most part this hasn't been particularly tribal, although obviously you can tell where sympathies lie. If you don't like it then don't read it. Quite simple really.

That does sound hard, I hope you enjoyed the day.

And no one has said any different, have they?

That is sad news, RIP.

Thanks, interesting that in those articles the brain drain occured during periods of low taxation and not high. Also, as I pointed out earlier, a fairer distribution of wealth would actually benefit those graduates who were leaving and not penalise them - one of the people quoted as leaving was earning 21K. I don't want to penalise the rich, the innovators or graduates - just the super rich. As VFTT pointed out it's a global issue but it frustrates me that whilst benefit scroungers are rightly vilified no one seems to worry or get annoyed about seriously wealthy people getting away with paying little or no tax. Even corporations do it - in 1997 Newscorp payed about 8% global corporation tax. We're all supposed to be in this together aren't we......unless you're very rich and then it's OK to forget about social responsibility. Edit: In fact when you look at those articles it suggests those countries which are "fairer" produce more graduates and keep them far better than us.

That's of course the standard answer and maybe that might happen, maybe it wouldn't. Does it happen in Denmark (I honestly don't know)? I'm personally sceptical that all of them would - maybe they would do what everyone else is doing, not complain and just get on with things (isn't that what most people on this thread are doing in the face of cuts?). We should give them the benefit of the doubt and give them that opportunity.

Well so far no one has said that fairer wealth distribution was a target of the last Labour Govt. In fact Blair actually came out and said that he was looking for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. New Labour pretty much gave up on the idea - mostly because electorally it's a pretty hard sell. I think it's important to note that a fairer distribution would probably only affect the super rich rather than the merely rich and professional middle class. Something stupid like 5% of the country own 90% of the wealth of the country so 95% of people would actually be better off. You could actually argue that the last 30 years of govt., both Labour and Tory, has specifically introduced policy to make that 5% even richer so a reversal is long overdue and fairer. Other countries manage to do it and we're NOT talking about communist style flat wage caps for everyone here, so why not?

Good post, although sadly I don't think debate was ever really on the cards in this thread.

Of course it isn't a commie philosophy - it's a central tenant of both capitalism and a mixed economy. Without wealth distribution capitalism wouldn't work would it? I was merely arguing for a fairer system of it.

Where did I say Communism? Pretty sure that was never mentioned.

Cheers Dune, the only possible reason for posting that was to agree with me. Still makes me laugh as I suspect it does you as well.

We could also try a fairer distribution of wealth.

Damn, agreeing with you is becoming a habit.

You can also argue the public sector is the faciltator - it educates you, it keeps you healthy, it protects you, it empties your bins, provides a safety net when markets fail, it bails out the banks to protect your money, it regulates against unfettered markets. It's job is to allow the private sector to do theirs. When the public sector screws up it is accountable, and that's how it should be. Of course you can argue that the private sector could do all those things but it's not a place I'd like to live in.

Far too sensible a post you c * n t - don't you realise people want to get angry? Actually this thread is depressing, really depressing. Neither sector could exist without the other and both have their problems - there is waste in both, there is incompetence in both and there are also very good people in both. What does seem to be exclusive on this thread though is entrenched opinion by some that the public sector is wasteful, lazy and militant - it's almost pointless to debate because any defence has the inevitable reply of "well, I've got it harder".

I think the teachers should do a charity record for the private sector, maybe 'Do they know it's summertime'? That way they could draw attention to a forgotten group of people who as this thread has shown just get on with things and very rarely moan.

Absolutely - before the fixture list was released I was unsure about whether we needed any signings but now that we know who we are playing I've changed my mind........