egg

Yep. We bought a diesel car that was so 'clean' the road tax was free (and still is)but attracts the ULEZ fee. Make it make sense.

On that, we do agree.

And the US...this from the recent Witkoff interview: Trump wanted to co-operate with Russia after relations had been normalised. "Who doesn't want to have a world where Russia and the US are doing collaboratively good things together, thinking about how to integrate their energy polices in the Arctic, share sea lines maybe, send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together?" LD's mate Maggie privatising gas has left us exposed to this situation. Net zero here, in itself, won't make any difference on a global scale, but removing our reliance on gas, and it's suppliers, makes lots of sense.

The Steve Witkoff interview yesterday is a real eye opener. Too many highlights to summarise here, but fair to say that the Putin/Trump double act seems to be a real thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zm4eqvp7o

Fair point!!

Eh? And he's not Musk. It surprises me that 10m people follow someone like Tate. Nothing wrong in highlighting that.

He makes a valid point though. Mind boggling that so many follow people a bloke that.

His executive orders against law firms are unbelievable. One firm had involvement with the DA in the Stormy Daniels prosecution against him, and a lawsuit against the perpetrators of the capitol riot. Donny's response - revoke the security clearance of the firms lawyers, make them agree to $40m free legal work for the government, hire "on merit" and abandon any DEI initiatives. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d4kex0w2ro

I oh see, so there's only a need for a discussion if it's your agenda. Thanks for clarifying.

Your post was contradictory, you started with 'What discussion needs to be had' then raised issues as you saw them, and then concluded by saying 'That's why I object to this ( a discussion I presume) because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have'. There is a problem. There needs to be change. There needs to be discussion and consideration to understand what needs to be changed, and how that can be achieved.

I want to stay on topic. On this issue, where is the media 'control' over and above (and it's a stretch for me) contriving a discussion by making a hard hitting TV programme? Where's the government control on this issue?

I'm not getting into a conspiracy theory discussion. On this subject, this programme and Southgate have sparked a discussion. There's zero point discussing that with you as you've questioned what there is to discuss. That much should be obvious.

We've got similar backgrounds, and I'm grateful for the fact that I was kept on the straight and narrow. Whelk's point about kids wanting and sometimes craving discipline is a good one, and I can relate to that. For me it's evident that there's a serious issue to address, and what worries me is that you, Hypo, and doubtless others on here, think that there's some kind of media or government thought control at play. How can we make progress without discussion, and with a perception of us all being controlled, for reasons I cannot fathom?

Thanks. Saved me replying to that nonsense.

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed.

A different perspective on that is they've made something relevant, sparked a necessary debate, and want to use the opportunity for wider discussion, and hopefully make necessary changes. The "condition people" part I keep hearing, and nobody seems able to credibly explain what they actually mean and how they actually feel it's happening. The cruel irony to that statement is that it overlooks that the conditioning in this context is from the influencers in vulnerable kids, and doesn't address how we address that.

I'm not sure who's pretending to be experts. Do you agree that there needs to be discussion leading to action? Assuming you do, why can't something high profile be used to kick start it? Seems a good thing to me.

What I'm not seeing is mention of who these positive role models should be. Lots of who it shouldn't be though. I had my father, football coaches, cub/scout leaders, teachers who gave it straight, neighbours who weren't afraid to pull you up when you were out of line, bosses (I started working when at school), and others. My peers had similar, so there was a degree of peer policing. We were little shits at times, in fact often but we knew where the line was and didn't cross it.

What's your objection to something prompting a discussion that's necessary? Unless you're saying that there's no discussion to be had?

It should start with their father.

Anyone can sound crap in the guildhall with those acoustics. Courteeners are brilliant live, but in there they sounded dreadful. James yoo. Moon safari though, what an album.

Suggestion - stop goading.

Or to bite, every time.

Challenge

Not ideal! Presumably decent dark chocolate is okay though?