Sergei Gotsmanov

Its not a big idea. Its about choice and not having to subsidise an organisation that I do not want to. How do you think Murdoch implements his system?

So to conclude, its one rule for those that want to keep the wicked influence of Murdoch at bay and another that want to question the left wing bias of the BBC. I admire your honest hypocracy.

Its should their problem not the consumers.

We are not asking wether the Beeb is good value just whether paying should be compulsory.

Which of the quotes is made up then Pedg? Remove your blinkers.

If I recall the Beeb had to pull one of their adverts for being threatening a few years ago. You may feel it is value for money but what if I don't? I still have to pay; that is wrong in my book. (I actually agree with you that it is good value for money)

So Verbal the quotes on the right hand side are made up?

I am not saying that any broadcaster is impartial BTF just saying that the BBC is generally accepted by many for having a liberal left wing bias. You felt it wasn't; I am argueing that it is. Sky news has a right to be impartial because people have the choice to subscribe to this. The BBC opt to use intimidating adverts to enforce the tax that keeps them in business.

Beeb is not impartial - ask Peter Sissons. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

There is a pub near Whitchurch - the Watership Down Inn, they used to sell their rabit pie with 'youv'e seen the film now eat the cast'.

No because it upset our important American trading partners. Remove your horse hair vest and understand that we have to trade with as many people as possible. I mean where do you stop; what about the Chinese? How can we do business while Tibet remains oppressed? Those Russians are a bit corrupt and the way they treat the Chechens! Guatanomo Bay is an embarraseement for the Americans. God we fought an illigal war in Iraq, we are lucky that anybody trades with us. In your world we would probably only export to Luxembourg.

No I can cope with long words. A startling injudicious statement from somebody on a different intellectual plateau.

I really do think that you should go on fifteen to one Verbal or have you already won it? I am not questioning your clearly broad knowledge on all things but you seem to have ignored my point. Somebody will sell them arms and I would like it to be us not the French.

Do you ever read Pseud's corner in private eye?

Just because you sell them arms does not mean that you support them. I am sure the famillies of the Vickers workers do not share your self righteous indulgence.

Quite right. A Blue Peter badge does not keep people in work.

Tragic news. He should still be playing. In my 30+ years of supporting Saints he was in the top three defenders. Goal against Ipsich springs to mind. RIP.

eyes still well up when I think of what happened to Hazel

That is quite a gamble. If you ever go into a bar in the city you will see that it is a pretty multinational set up. As I said Franfurt is waiting! I firgot about Lehman Bros; that would have tipped them over. I hate banks but they are a neccessary evil. They even charged me £150 for the priviledge of having a small overdraft facility on my business account!

Not really splitting hairs. Barclays were not bailed out; that is a very significant difference to the other banks. As I stated before they played by the rules. I do not believe in changing the rules after the event. Do you think they paid more corporation tax in 2010? Mr. Wolfe - very bourgeois

Calm down Wolfie, did I say that? They played by the rules; as I asked before, do you think they would volunteer to pay more or invest in their business with the subsequent spin offs for all of us. Barclays were not bailed out by the tax payer, so we have less of a right to dictate to them. Once again you seem to be getting into a frenzied state when somebody offers a different opinion to yourself. I am simply stating that unpalatable as it may seem we cannot clobber the banks as is the temptation but have to nurture this valuable cash cow.

Why do you not celebrate the fact that company made £12billion and the subsequent added benefits and direct and indirect tax consequences. You display a very shallow and one dimensional perspective.

Actually I thought that was pretty disgusting but they are only working under the rules. Do you expect organisations to volunteer to pay more taxes? Blame Gordon Brown for that. The point that I am making is that the city is critical to the economy and you have to tread carefully or we will lose a considerable cash cow.

Sadly I disagree, tax too hard and the bankers will go. The temptation is to demand some kind of retribution for their role in bringing the global economy to its knees but in reality we would be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. We need the revenue that the city geneerates and have to make sure that it ticks all the boxes for the city big wigs. The Germans would give their eye teeth to have Franfurt as the main European financial centre.

I agree. This is Eastern Bloc dictatorship stuff.