Verbal

Is this intentionally amusing? I do hope so.

Spelling: two 'n's.

Proof, pudding, etc. 'Praising to the hilt' isn't exactly what the IMF said, though, is it - and they themselves hardly have a monopoly on wisdom. Up until last week they were predicting a double dip. What happened in a week? And 'a good education and upbringing = statesmanlike qualities?' I really do find it constantly surprising - though characteristically, subserviently British - that we still doff our caps to them upstairs.

Ever heard Churchill speak, or seen pictures of Disraeli? Wouldn't have won without the union vote? That distinguishes him from which Labour leader exactly? Is EM and his appearance really that much of a liability compared to balloon-faced, gossamer-deep Cameron or that toffee-nosed, silver-spooned dumbass Osborne?

After one of your questions.

Whether he did or not, the answer is yes, sadly.

Absolutely right, BTF. As a former member of BECTU, I know that members have been able to do this since the 1980s. (And note: this was the result of pressure from members, NOT Thatch.)

And bring back tommac.

Fortunately, Eady has been kicked out. This utter nitwit was responsible for more damage to freedom of expression than anything or anyone in the last few years. We should hopefully now see a fall in successful actions against message boards - at least for libel and slander. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8003396/Justice-Eady-replaced-as-Britains-top-libel-judge.html

Earning more in tax-free expenses than my salary. (In the good/bad old days when ITV was king.) I remember, shortly after starting, being marched into Personnel by my union rep who yelled: 'This employee MUST be paid his mileage allowance! The fact that he doesn't have a car has nothing to do with it!' Bliss.

But they are rarely 'private individuals' are they? They are frequently chairmen (and always men) of often large companies, who are almost always contributing funds without consulting employees or shareholders. And they contribute in order to buy influence.

You made more sense p*ssed. And then hardly any. What's with the weird punctuation and bizarre syntax? You appear to be saying the opposite of what you (presumably - who knows?) intend.

That wouldn't make any sense. Labour were far from annihilated in the last election, and the Tories were far from being victors. The next election is eminently winnable for Labour, especially when the cuts REALLY bite, as they haven't even begun to yet. The coalition will disintegrate - even those within it are aware that that's more likely than not - and so there is everything to play for. I'm not sure about EM, but I think I'll give him more than a few hours before deciding whether I think he has potential as a serious and engaging political leader.

Hart is not, and never has been a 'BBC correspondent', as often claimed by those jumping on his bandwagon, although he did, in the late seventies, present the occasional Panorama, as a freelance. Respected? By whom? He certainly isn't your classical model of an independent-minded observer of events - for example, trying (and failing) to persuade the Shah of Iran to go into exile in the UK after the collapse of his regime in 1979. And if you actually listen to that video recording, even Hart says everything is 'speculation' - aside from the 'certainty' that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion. This, he says, is based on a conversation with one senior engineer, a mate of his who saw the attacks on the tele. Utter tosh. He also makes a big play about Mossad, as if Israeli intelligence were all-seeing, all-powerful. They are not. Mossad was instrumental, for example, in creating Hamas as a bulwark against the PLO. It was a classic case, as one US intelligence officer put it, of the Israelis setting their own hair on fire and trying to put it out with a hammer.

...you finally get the spokesman you deserve. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/23/iran-unitednations

Is this the Karl Pilkington memorial thread?

Some words of wisdom from Palin today: "It's been made absolutely clear that those who hold these, I think, common-sense and pretty mainstream positions, who are attacked, unfortunately, some destructive false shots don't just come from the far left, and that's what I'll admit to learning in these last couple of years. "But those in the liberal media: you're worse for using, in that lamestream media, those unsubstantiated untrue hits, it's not fair to our country, it's not fair to the electorate, it's not fair to our democracy, and it is not fair to our troops willing to sacrifice all for our freedoms, journalists, ok?" Who needs Churchill (the guy with the cigar, not the dog)?

I think it's a con. The copyright language sounds like it's designed to 'be there' once someone who's been contacted by him checks on the website. This, for me at least, is the giveaway: 'Our unique search engines make finding [the photographs] easy.'

No, just beneath contempt, like all religionists.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting - because those are remarkably POSITIVE figures for Labour support such a short time after an election that was supposed to be 'disastrous', and during which they often polled only in the high 20s. Stanley's hopeless fantasy of Tory rule for a generation looks shaky even now.

Don't even THINK that. Oh, you did. Now you're damned to hell.

My first reaction was that it WAS a special effect. I was working on a film at the time, and had dropped into a postproduction house in Soho. As I walked in the door, the TV was replaying the plane hitting the South Tower. I remember looking at it and thinking: that explosion and fire ball doesn't look quite right. And then someone told me it was real. It turned out that an acquaintance of mine, a cameraman called Paul Berriff, was filming at the base of the towers that morning. He thankfully survived - and came away with some frightening (and never broadcast) footage. At the time, I was seeking permission to film at the Twin Towers, and the PR people at the WTC were meeting that morning to discuss the proposal. They also survived.

In the end, we are all answerable to CB Fry. Keep up.

For example, guess what the answer is to this question: Whatever happened with Lotfi Raissi, who was arrested in UK for teaching the terrorist pilots? Answer: he was completely innocent, and was recently compensated. Or this: Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Etc., etc. Ignore the 'truther' movement. The idea that 9/11 was the result of a black ops scheme deep within the Bush administration is fantasy writ so large only because the internet is a remarkably efficient transmitter of paranoic, conspiratorial garbage dressed as 'investigation'.

Shame you had to raise that nonsense.