Verbal

Heavens above, Viking - as an example of faulty logic this really takes the biscuit. To report on corruption does not mean you've used corrupt means to gain evidence of it. Are you really saying that all investigative reporting is by definition corrupt? By that measure, Woodward and Bernstein are the most corrupt journalists on the planet because their investigation brought down a President. As for the BBC or anyone else being 'whiter than white', you're clearly imagining something I said. However, it would be a useful starting point, surely, to start with some specific allegation, rather than some swivel-eyed finger-pointing based on the square root of FA. Leaks, by the way, take many forms. Many come from the highest sources. Others from whistleblowers trying to expose - to take one example - a hospital that has a habit of killing virtually every baby it operates on when doing heart surgery. Are you really saying that because the information came from a whistleblower (who incidentally are supposed to be PROTECTED by law, not acting outside it), a newspaper or broadcaster, having checked its reliability, should just sit on it and imagine nothing happened? What the NoW did was of a totally different order, and spreading the accusation so wide as to be meaningless actually lets the criminal, corrupt NoW off the hook. Is that what you intend?

In what way exactly have the BBC behaved like NoW, except in your conspiracy-addled opinion? Let's not defuse this into a hopeless delldays-ish moan about 'oh god, the media - but ho hum...' There is evidence here of serial law-breaking, corruption, interference with several criminal investigations, threats, inducements and intimidation.

This is the Metropolitan Police we're talking about - the least supervised of all the police forces in the country, where corruption and extra-legal violence seem to have become ingrained. There's no question in my mind that the investigation should be handed to an outside police force - with the appointment of a special prosecutor to drive it through without the interference, corruption and influence-peddling that have seriously derailed the investigation so far.

It is worrying that the Tories are behaving like this. Some of it is down to the fact that going against any part of the Murdoch empire is like going again the Scientologists - they'll target you and attempt to discredit you with a relentless determination. But some of it, unfortunately, is that many in the Tory hierarchy are fatally committed to doing the Murdoch empire favours in return for political support (witness Jeremy Hunt's decision to rubber stamp the BSkyB takeover - in no one's interest except Murdoch's).

Don't worry. Rebekah Brooks is leading an investigation into herself. The truth will come out.

If you want to register your opposition to Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB, you can add your signature here and it will be forwarded to Jeremy Hunt at the DCMS. Public consultation on his decision only runs until this Friday. http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/96.php

Or a submarine.

It's bad enough that you bankers hoodwinked yourselves and everyone else, and caused the credit crunch in the first place with your absurd derivatives-driven property bubble. But to then blame it on a bunch of politicians - who, no matter how awful they may be, are completely irrelevant to international bankers - is pretty staggering. None of which has any bearing on this thread. Rebekah Wade should go. It didn't just happen 'on her watch' - she was responsible for the culture at NoW that created this mess.

I can make some of your dream come true. I'll sell you a box. Aside from that, I don't need the money. £155m is chicken feed.

Who exactly has said both?

More like 'will be' a deficit, because many pensions funds are, in cash terms, in surplus. But of course it makes sense to calculate future liabilities as precisely as possible - otherwise you run the risk of running what is in effect a pyramid scheme, paying present pensions out of present contributions until, like Madoff, you simply run out of cash. These deficits are the result of actuarial calculations, rather than looking at the balance in the bank account, and the rules have been considerably amended in recent years to take into account, among other things, greater longevity. But they pay less attention, it seems, of evolving government policy on retirement age, so many think they're overly pessimistic. But as you say, it's good that it's open to debate. Finally Saintweb can make its mark on national policy.

Oh. You're back.

BA have long had 'form' with thuggery and underhand tactics, and are an industrial relations nightmare. Don't know how you managed to put up with it for so long, Duncan.

So the state provides but should not interfere? You sound like a caricature benefits scrounger, Sergei: 'I demand you give me tax-money but don't even think of asking what it's for.'

If you're talking about USS you're wrong, grandad.

Pretty accurate, this - except that the menu is like all the repeats you see in an ITV schedule. Nothing seems to change much, and all looks fairly bland. Then you enter the twilight zone of a thread full, apparently, of 'mongs', 'princesses', ***ts', etc, etc, ad nauseum. I'm all for insults, but can't they be a bit more imaginative and entertaining than this?

It's a similar story with USS, the university lecturers' pension scheme. From The Guardian: USS is the second biggest occupational pension scheme in the UK and according to its website is 'one of the largest and most stable pension schemes in the UK'. In the 12 months to March 2010, USS grew by £4.5bn despite a significant economic downturn in what was described as a 'good investment performance' by the fund's managers.

I've had the misfortune to work with one of those. For once, you're right.

turkdellhypobajii. (plus that bloke who's named himself after the leader of the BNP and suffers from premature enumeration.)

What's he moaning about? He gets a free submarine.

Last instalment was 2006.

Quite. If you leave aside the technical details of why the building collapsed, and suppose that it was brought down as a result of the American government's making a deliberate decision to demolish it (along with the two towers), then you're left with a conspiracy so colossal that there is no way SOMEONE, among the many thousands who'd have had to be in on it, wouldn't have blurted out the 'truth'.

I'm not sure this counts. I worked once for Island Records. My job was to apologise - all the time. The demand for apologies peeked with the release of a Wailers album many copies of which were so warped they only had any use as ash trays. Endless handwritten mea culpas were sent out to upset customers from an office next to Island's warehouse. Everyone working there seemed to be smoking something or other - to such an extent that I think they discouraged the forklift drivers from driving in the afternoons. Our office was effectively a ventilation shaft for the warehouse. That's all I remember.

Burley's second season. In pre-season, Alps went on and on about how poor-to-non-existent our centre backs were. He was certainly right then.

What's it really like for reporters when they talk to British politicians? Here's an appalling little insight. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/01/ed-miliband-interviewer-shame-strike-soundbites This may be extreme, but such a level of control and manipulation is by no means unusual.