badgerx16

Probably just a typo : http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html You can stop laughing now.

Video on the Beeb giving probable cause of the tyre issues : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23118249

Don't like the home shirt, won't buy it, and I'm entitled to that opinion - my support for the team, however, will never falter, ( mind you I wasnt a fan of last year's home shirt either ). The main issues I have with the kit are (1) it's just a generic cop out taken straight from Adidas' 'off the shelf' catalogue, and (2) I don't like the gold logo & badge. As for the away kit, it's not what I expected ( historically I've preferred the yellow & blue kits ), but then again away strips tend to be a bit 'off the wall', and it will probably grow on me.

If it's a desert island, DP's would just be one great big bunker.

Bloody Autralians, can't even park a bus properly. What a farcical stage.

You would be on a different island.

"Break the Cycle" - Staind "Dummy" - Portishead "Dark Side of the Moon" - Pink Floyd "Karmacode" - Lacuna Coil "Moonflower" - Santana

Now this is where it gets interesting - rather than, for instance, selecting blue eyes, what if both of the parents were carriers for Cystic Fibrosis, and by gene splicing chromosome 7 you could ensure the removal of the faulty gene for the CTFR protein, replacing it with a fully functional one ? This would prevent the disease from manifesting itself.

That was a bloody expensive salad.

If they start meddling with the parental DNA then yes, selective breeding becomes an option.

Mitochondrial DNA is only ever inherited from the mother - it comes from the egg cell, ( the mitochondria of the sperm get left outside on fertilisation as they are in the tail ). This, therefore, does not in any way affect the inherited characteristics of the child, it will be a 100% mix of the parents as the mitochondrial DNA cannot be integrated into the cell nucleus. All this is doing is replacing that part of the cell that produces energy.

Well, it's the GK shirt for me then.

I'm worried that the answers to both questions is yes.

I thought from the title that this thread was about a new policy initiative.

Maybe you could ask the people who wrote that Parliamentary paper, or Lord Hutton who produced the original report. ( Not that I could possible accuse the Torygraph of having an agenda ).

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05823.pdf‎ "The LGPS is different in that, like Defined Benefit schemes in the private sector, it is funded. This means that contributions are paid into a fund, which is invested, and from which pension benefits are paid. " "“The LGPS pays out about £5bn each year in benefits and takes in £10bn in income. There is no cash crisis for some time and most schemes are cash positive for the next 14 to 20 years.”"

The taxpayer ( through the good offices of Central or Local Government ) is the employer, so this is hardly a surprise. This is up to the Government, who are already making significant changes to the schemes. Semantic argument - the LGPS is funded by 3 sources; the employer, the employee, and investment income from the funds. I suggest that a similar private sector scheme would be funded in exactly the same way. The lack of 'top-up' funding from the Treasury, in my eyes, means it is 'self funded'.

And what I am saying is that they don't "underwrite" the LGPS. And the irony of today's teachers strike, I get home to find my wife doing lesson plans - but she says she "didn't start until after half past three", so technically the strike day was over.

How exactly do you expect ANYTHING in the public sector to be funded ? Ultimately the money is public money, by definition, and a lot of the 'public' money spent by that sector ends up in the coffers of PRIVATE businesses. So who is funding their pensions, expenses, and bonuses in such instances ?

[h=2]What do we do best in this Country? Moan, whinge, and whine.[/h]

No, in the same way I cannot choose to stop funding foreign military adventures, or supplying overseas aid to countries with their own space programs. If your company became a supplier to the public sector, you would effectively be paid by public money, would you then decide to not take the benefits of that investment ?

Same as mine. The fact that my employer is technically the tax payer makes no difference.

What size would he be if he didn't have a healthy diet ?

Technically we are all paying for somebody else's pensions; when I retire the proceeds from the LGPS will be generated from the investment income, plus the contributions of those working at that time. The same with the state pension, what we pay in today gets paid out to the current batch of pensioners, when we get our entitlement, it will be the earning potential of today's teenagers that funds it ( ).

In which case Gove, as the fifth Horseman, will bury it forever.