egg

How does pointing the finger of blame help deal with the very real mess that we are in? How does striking make money available for pensions in the future?

Don't get me wrong I would be livid if I subscribed to something and then someone changed the rules unilaterally. It's difficult though to have colleagues on different schemes. That is a recipe for disaster. I think what you are doing is what many in the private sector (myself included) have been doing for years. That's probably music to the governments ears.

All I have read on here is 12 pages of blame and counter blame. The bottom line is that the economy is in a mess. It's no good keep harping on about the bail out to banks etc. Whether it was right or wrong it's been done and the money has gone. We all (the private and public sector) need to face the reality of a massive debt and aging population. We cannot carry on as we were - changes need to be made . It seems inevitable that those changes must include some alterations to public sector pensions. Whilst I agree with the principle of change, the government have dealt with it appallingly and shown no respect for it's employees. The problem now is that lines have been drawn in the sand. Interesting and worrying times ahead methinks.

I don't think the site is dying. The deppo banning was unnecessary and we lost (well apparently he's gone) a decent poster. I feared that as a result of that the site could go downhill. However, a number of people who previously did not post had something to say. I've noticed a number of posts recently from people who I've never previously noticed. For someone like me who on the whole would rather read than get involved, this is still a decent site. The one thing that has made the site less interesting is the lack of genuine itk people giving us the heads up on football matters. I suspect that has more to do with the club doing it's business in private rather than anything else though.

Field

Yes I mean private sector. The limited presence of unions in the private sector makes employees in that sector so much more vulnerable than those in the public sector. This is a reality, not bullsh@t.

] I agree with this. The private sector do not have the protection of unions. Employees must either accept the terms on the table or walk. Employers will have no problem plugging the gap.

I've not said call the police etc. Yeah do that but I get the point that sitting there politely waiting for the police may not be the answer. Instinct would tell me grab a bat and deal with the situation. It's true that most burglars aren't there for trouble. Most would **** themselves and run if confronted. They just want stuff to sell for drug money. They don't want to be caught, and just want to find another house to burgle. The issue is what is reasonable if there is a confrontation. You can use reasonable force but that doesn't mean battering the living **** out of someone. It also doesn't mean that you can do so just in case you may come under attack. Grey areas are littered throughout the law but I think it's hard to argue that homeowners should be able to kill an intruder as of right.

Sadoldgit has explained the legal position as have I. He works for the cps and I have been a lawyer for 18 years. Like it or not the law is what it is.

Lips

Biblical

Rihanna

Strange, they're only on the ten pound one. Sounds like they can expect a text. What are they replacing the unlimited web with?

Heaven

Much missus and daughter not had the text. They get the goody bag. What package you on?

We were owned by a billionaire and are now (probably) owned by his beneficiaries. This close season's spending will show whether Cortese still has the ability to write cheques as he did. If he can, and does, I think the play offs are realistic. If we keep what we have i think we're midtable.

Being fearful of a possible scenario is not enough. Basically you are right though that what is necessary in the circumstances is the issue. I wouldn't be overly confident of defending the fella in the examples you give though.

Wellies

Sog, your lawyer colleague gives a simplistic explanation. Death in an attack does not mean that the force is excessive, and certainly would not necessarily lead to a murder charge rather than manslaughter. Granted, if you kill someone you are on the backfoot but no means on the way to the gallows. The context and degree of force make a huge difference.

Your home being burgled does not necessarily mean that you are under attack. The law looks at whether force is necessary and then whether the degree of force is reasonable in the circumstances. If you go get a knife and stab a burglar when you are no danger, and ie the bloke is leaving then you are in trouble. If you are in physical danger and reach out to grab the nearest thing to hand to defend yourself (not your home) and use it to fend off an attack you may be ok depending on the degree of force used.. Example, you lash out and that's the end of it then that's probably reasonable. If the guy drops and you keep stabbing cos the guy is scum then you have gone too far.

Nail on head. You don't need to like coldplay, or their music, or Chris Martin to recognise that the performance at Glastonbury was excellent.

They're a disgrace. Many of us in the real world, ie not the public services, have been clinging onto jobs for the last few years and pay cuts have been a reality for many. Anyone with any sense can see that the country could not carry on as it was. Previous pay deals and pension schemes are no longer sustainable. Holding people to ransom is not going to make money available to meet demands.

Hollywood

Much as I find Mlg more irritating than a dose of the clap, he makes a fair point. Still not sure what it has to do with the thread though.

I would love to see Haye win but my head says klitchko will. He's a different fighter to Valuev, more mobile. I reckon the fight has the potential to be a classic though.