Verbal

I'm sorry to hear that VW. So interlinked are the private and public sectors (contrary to some dinosaurs on here) that the severity of the cuts will inevitably destroy jobs - and a few people's lives. So yes, there are large issues, aside from pensions. However, the pensions battle is part of a wider struggle that's gone on since the capitalistic year dot. Reasonable terms and conditions of employment, where they exist, are usually there because someone has fought for them, not because some altruistic magnate has thought 'ooh, I have way too much money, I'll distribute it among the people who created the wealth in the first place.' The pensions fight is just one more skirmish in that tradition.

Turkish isn't much of an expert on what he said five minutes ago, so I doubt you should take that as gospel. But let's talk about you. Striking or shirking?

Not me guv'nor - although I did recommend that someone on here see one. You know how helpful I try to be.

I've been charitable and left your medication out of it. But I'm curious - are you on strike? Because you seem to have an awful lot of free time today. Or are you - again - secretly wasting your employer's time and money?

So why do you want to know?

Ah, so this thread has followed its inevitable course, now that it turns out to be about you.

Can I have some questions too? And where are the picket pics??

And every single one of the people questioned were BBC employees on orders to give the 'correct' answers. With all the left-wing conspiracies floating above your head it's amazing you can make any sense at all.

Four Saints players in the top ten assists. Impressive.

So the thing that animates you the most is not the burning issues of today but whether you are or are not a Daily Mail reader? If I may say so, that's a typical DM response, V Dubya.

I think you should have some sharp words with trousers, who's clearly shirking. Just walked through a picket line (not on the way to work, I might add). Very pleasant experience - everyone chatty and happy at the turnout.

...cooked over a nice picket line fire. One out, all out, trousers! Well done, comrade!

Wrong again. Here's the BBC poll, for example, commissioned this week and showing strong support for the strike. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621 EDIT: Snap!

You're either having a nice day off, courtesy of the public sector, or you're seriously abusing your employer's trust spending so much time on here. Which is it?

Ah, the swivel-eyed right wing's poor grip of logic strikes (!) again. Of course one debatable case means you can generalise to an entire union movement...

Pics here please TLS.

Will the poster in desperate need of both please make an urgent appointment - writing in bold is a sign of serious decline.

Having a nice day off? You know who to thank.

There are perfectly good reasons for discounting pap's views. This is not one of them.

Thou art not far wrong.

I'm not so sure dune has the authority to dictate who should and should not contribute to a thread. And for reasons of context, perhaps this is a good thread on which to post happy picket pics.

As both an income and corporation tax payer, my only real issue with the public sector is the size of salaries of some at the top end. Demonising public sector workers is becoming a sport played to amuse the dumb and stupid.

I did wonder (giving you the benefit of the doubt), but then I just assumed you weren't breaking forum rules.

Are you really saying something so paranoid as that a book 'written by an author' [sic] and published by a well-known publisher is, ipso facto, not to be trusted? And what critical analysis or primary evidence? Your offhand impressions? As a scientist, Pinker no doubt falls into the category of a malign conspiracist for some (!). And I'm sure it's entirely credible that his mysterious, all-powerful publisher was issuing edicts to him on what had to be written... Good grief. Back to reality, please read the book at least - or if not, consult the various sites discussing it, which show the following: Pinker makes the case that a smarter, more educated world is becoming more peaceful in several statistically significant ways. His findings are based on peer-reviewed studies published by other academics using examinations of graveyards, surveys and historical records: — The number of people killed in battle — calculated per 100,000 population — has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved. Before there were organized countries, battles killed on average more than 500 out of every 100,000 people. In 19th century France, it was 70. In the 20th century with two world wars and a few genocides, it was 60. Now battlefield deaths are down to three-tenths of a person per 100,000. — The rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008. — There were fewer than 20 democracies in 1946. Now there are close to 100. Meanwhile, the number of authoritarian countries has dropped from a high of almost 90 in 1976 to about 25 now. And so on and on, all the way down to the decline in racist abuse and attacks.

This pessimism really isn't warranted. Society has not 'reverted to a form of tribalism'. What makes this woman's outburst shocking is that it's actually quite rare these days. Some serious work has been done recently on what you call the 'bigger picture'. The best of it, perhaps, is a book by the eminent Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, entitled The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. (And within violence, of course, he includes these kinds of outbursts and other signs of what you call 'tribalism'.) He says that historically we've never been so peaceful, and his statistics reveal dramatic reductions in war deaths, family violence, racism, rape, murder and all sorts of trouble. Pinker writes: “The decline of violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species.” On the subject of books, how did you get on with The Looming Tower?