Whitey Grandad

The same people who paid for your schooling.

Complete boycott the only answer. Only a prompt and unqualified apology might save them.

The money was put in without having the systems in place to control it.

I was thinking of the doubling of spending on the NHS (for one example) for around 30% improvement in services. Please don't ask me for a source, these figures come from 3 or 4 years ago. The problems all started with pollock Brown, thinking that you could make things better by throwing money at them.

That's a fair summary, except that public services should be far, far better than they are for the amount that we're spending on them.

To prove they're not a drinker? No, I don't know either.

Greed? What, wanting to keep more than half of what you earn? We are beyond the tax levels at which putting up the rates brings in more money

You must always have an unused one in the car, so if you do ever use one you will still have the spare.

I know that giving them money for nothing in return is not the answer.

I wasn't advocating that, merely pointing out the logical extension of the argument.

Hmm, pay them not to riot?

I read a great quote the other day: 'By the time I realised my dad was right I had a son telling me that I was wrong' I can't find the source, David Schwimmer?

In fairness (to me) I was referring to the rich in general. Jimmy Carr is obviously a special case. Why is it that everybody loves Ken Dodd and finds his tax arrangements a great laugh whilst Jimmy Carr is a target for vilification? Is it because he's not as funny?

But only 0% if it is spent, that might work. So might putting in a bank that could then lend it to entrepreneurial entrepreneurs.

Bloody heck! How much did they weigh? What purity was it?

I sometimes think that teenagers are genetically programmed to be obnoxious just to ensure that they are thrown out of the nest.

If true, we're in trouble.

The first of many, I would expect. Are they running scared already?

Hence the drive towards higher indirect taxation in recent times.

Agreed, although whether the savings should be spent on doctors I'm not so sure about.

Exactly, which is worse the 50,000 or the one? The 'offence' is the same. There's an old joke: A man asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million pounds. She thinks about it and says yes. He then asks if she will sleep with him for a pound, She says 'of course not, what do you think I am?' He says 'We've established what you are, now we are merely arguing over the price'. The flush of accountants started after Rolls-Royce went bust. Then we got Thatcher and her lot trying to put a price on everything.

I'm all for it. Perhaps it will discourage all these single mothers.

There were a lot of very average players out there tonight, and even they were playing below average.

Morally they're the same. 50,000 people saving £20 or one person £1,000,000. More than that, the former is illegal, the second isn't, although perhaps it ought to be. One of the consequences is that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any industrialised country.

Pompey's new ground?