Sergei Gotsmanov

Totally wrong it is no business of theirs.

No but there is a definate trend there. How have your civil liberties changed since 1997?

Ahhh I see The Stain and VFTT are ganging up to play the intellectual superiority card.

In fairness you could probably remove State and insert wife. The tin foil jibe has gone over my head I am afraid.

No I just disllike hypocrisy in politicians - do you? Can you kindly stop judging me. That is the worst trait of the left. The name calling always starts from the left.

The State is all powerful in the world of the left dictating what we eat, drink, think, say and read. Worst of all it judges us all.

"over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". I like this fella John Stuart Mill. The left would struggle with that concept.

No shes not her son made her send him to private school.

No but I do not think it is compatible with alot of what she writes.

Its her Tuscany Villa! Nothing worse than a gravel drive socialist.

Sadly you are highlighting your intellectual short comings. Firstly with your visionary censorship plans (who decides what we can read and watch? You and Polly Toynbee) and secondly by suggesting NOTW readers are all stupid. Do you really think that an interest in which celebrity is screwing who is limited to certain lower end demographics? The NOTW overstepped the mark but Captain Cash improved a lot of people's lives.

I agree about playing by the same dirty rules but I think that the EU clauses would have been water tight or they would not have done it. For me though it still represents pure cowardice on Cameron's behalf. They thought it would have slipped under the radar. I hope they march and expose the folly of the decision. Sadly it will be left to the oddballs of the UK Independance party.

Absolutely despicable. This should be a major political issue but nothing has been said. The Government should be deeply embarrassed. Forget all this trivia about whether Cameron and Coulson this really affects peoples lives.

Who pays for the state - the taxpayer and if a sufficient number of taxpayers want to send their children to a school that reflects thaeir values then good luck to them. They must be good schools because everyone wants to send their children to them.

Brilliant volunteer work. The grandchildren will love it and will learn so much. If I ever retire then that is what I will aspire to.

The Sun was always rather tongue and a bit of fun. The NOTW was always vicious and unpalatable.

I would be in the priory in six months

I will never buy this paper again.

Its not ideal but I respect how important religion is to some people and do not think it is right for the State to confront these beliefs. To be honest I am not sure how many schools there are that fit into your description.

So they should pay their tax and then some more for their children to go to another school. Gorgie Saint has an argument I would subscribe to but that is more because they fuel sectarianism. The question that should be addressed is why is that faith schools are so popular with parents - is it because they deliver better results? My school (a long long time ago) was pretty Church of England but did not brain wash me into being a religious nut (maybe a forum bore).

Can you rephrase that too 'I pay a lot of tax and feel I should be entitled to have a say how it is spent; oh and that new artwork outside the civil offices is a waste of money'.

Well they do through their taxes. I would turn that around and say that the State has no place setting religious or any other agenda.

I am afraid we differ on this. I still believe that people should have the right to send their children to which school they like. Faith is probably the most important part of some people's lives and the state should not interfere. How can you assume that students cannot make up their own minds later in life. The biggest strouble with faith schools seems to be the number of people who want to send their children there. Does that send a message.

I think the Aussies have it right. You pay 9% of your salary straight into a fund. You can claim it when you retire or you emigrate.

Getting everybody to think the same is a dangerous road to go down. Should the National curriculum determine a set 'aceeptable thinking' and if so who decides what that thinking is?