Accused

[Bolton Midnight]

Last one next week

But what cracking tele (and true to life the woman got off, although I think most folk would try and see if the guy with the blue shorts and black dog was the right person before giving him a kicking)

iPlayer them if you've not already

Auntie Beeb at its best

[Dave B]

Auntie Beeb at its best
Enjoy it while it lasts, your beloved Conservatives are sowing the seeds of its demise. :(

[Bolton Midnight]

Are they really?

Making it more efficient I'd have said was a good thing not a bad thing, be nice to be funded that way.

The monopoly they have has like most of the public sector allowed it to get over paid, over manned, under worked, arrogant and complacent - time for a wake up call.

[Dave B]

Are they really?

Making it more efficient I'd have said was a good thing not a bad thing, be nice to be funded that way.

The monopoly they have has like most of the public sector allowed it to get over paid, over manned, under worked, arrogant and complacent - time for a wake up call.
It's got a smaller turnover than BSkyB and tends to pay under the market rate (eg the Director General gets £834K [source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6992387/Your-salary-is-wrong-and-corrosive-Mark-Thompson-BBC-director-general-told.html)] compared to £1.48 million to Andy Duncan at the far smaller Channel 4 [2009;source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/14/mps-andy-duncan-salary)] or a £775K basic plus potential £2.3 million bonus plus £2.9 million "golden hello" for Adam Crozier at ITV [source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258986/New-ITV-boss-Adam-Crozier-pick-multi-million-pound-golden-hello-payment.html)].

But don't let facts get in the way, hey.

[Mark]

Managing with less isn't a bad thing. The BBC has had years of being able to claim a bigger and bigger licence fee, seemingly without end. It's time to freeze that for a few years and have them manage their resources more carefully and make do with what they have.

The last thing we should do is abolish or privitise the BBC, but they cannot keep being granted more and more money from licence fee payers.

[Dave B]

Ironically the freeze on the LF - along with raiding it for things like the World Service or rural broadband - is likely to have a detrimental effect on the poorest in society.

It's estimated there are just under a million licence fee evaders, who tend to be those with little disposable income, and the BBC has traditionally not been anywhere near as stong as it should be on chasing them up. They've already stated that faced with a net loss in funding they'll be far more active in persuing and prosecuting these.

Yet another regressive coalition policy. :\

[Mark]

Ironically the freeze on the LF - along with raiding it for things like the World Service or rural broadband - is likely to have a detrimental effect on the poorest in society.

It's estimated there are just under a million licence fee evaders, who tend to be those with little disposable income, and the BBC has traditionally not been anywhere near as stong as it should be on chasing them up. They've already stated that faced with a net loss in funding they'll be far more active in persuing and prosecuting these.

Yet another regressive coalition policy. :\

LOL. Those people shouldn't have been 'getting away with it' in the first place, so that's hardly a reason not to go after them!

Of course, what will likely happen is they'll keep harassing people who genuinely don't have a TV set, as you can only pursue some so much before it becomes uneconomical.

The likes of students living in university flats aren't likely to get a TV licence no mater how many advert campaigns there are to say they should!

[Dave B]

In fairness I'd imagine that most students watch catchup services via computer/mobile quite legally without a licence, a loophole which no doubt will be closed as viewing habits change.

[MrJan]

LOL. Those people shouldn't have been 'getting away with it' in the first place, so that's hardly a reason not to go after them!

Of course, what will likely happen is they'll keep harassing people who genuinely don't have a TV set, as you can only pursue some so much before it becomes uneconomical.

The likes of students living in university flats aren't likely to get a TV licence no mater how many advert campaigns there are to say they should!

We didn't have a telly for about 15 years and used to regularly get hassle for not having a TV license, it's funny how you can get onto these lists but never off them. My Dad's mate signed him up to Saga as a bit of a joke and it took about 7 or 8 years to convince them that he wasn't over 50 and could stop sending him junk. In the end he actually had to post off a copy of his birth certificate before they would believe him :rolleyes:

[Mark]

Indeed. Most students at York have internet supplied to them in their rooms and I've heard that in the evenings the network starts to struggle purely down to the number of students using video on demand services.

[Bolton Midnight]

Isn't the licence fee for web and radio and not just TV?

Only worth hounding non payers if it makes money, unlike benefit cheat chasing which costs more than it recovers but I'd expect as much from the inept public sector.

[ArrowsFA1]

Only worth hounding non payers if it makes money...
Well worth chasing all those offshore accounts set up by business owners to avoid paying £billions in UK tax then.

[Dave B]

Isn't the licence fee for web and radio and not just TV?
It funds the BBC's radio and online services, but one is not legally required to have a licence to use them.

That's the anomaly which makes it perfectly legal to watch hour upon hour of iPlayer while listening to 6Music and reading the BBC News website; but illegal to watch 10 seconds of live news without a licence.

[Mark]

Isn't the licence fee for web and radio and not just TV?


Yes, it funds Television (incl. digital services), Radio (incl. digital radio) and Web. But of course the charge is only made if you are using a television.


Only worth hounding non payers if it makes money, unlike benefit cheat chasing which costs more than it recovers but I'd expect as much from the inept public sector.

Exactly. You aren't going to spend £1,000 recovering a £100 debt unless you want to make an example of someone.

[Dave B]

Exactly. You aren't going to spend £1,000 recovering a £100 debt unless you want to make an example of someone.
Ah yes, but if the fear of being caught makes 9 other people cough up then you've broken even.

[MrMetro]

One of the problems with BBC channels being on free-to-air satellites, is that people in countrys such as the Republic of Ireland and other European countrys, can easily get a big dish and view them without any license fee.

[Bolton Midnight]

Well worth chasing all those offshore accounts set up by business owners to avoid paying £billions in UK tax then.

Tax avoidance is fine and dandy, you'd be daft to pay more than you have to, esp as so much of it is wasted.

Anybody watch Panorama last night, what a bunch of useless ****ahs

[Dave B]

One of the problems with BBC channels being on free-to-air satellites, is that people in countrys such as the Republic of Ireland and other European countrys, can easily get a big dish and view them without any license fee.
True, but the only other alternative is to encrypt them which would mean each and every UK television being fitted with (or paired to an existing) card reader. The cost would be prohibitive.

[Dave B]

Anybody watch Panorama last night, what a bunch of useless ****ahs
Not personally, but a glimpse at the website would indicate it was about the death of Baby "P". What's that got to do with tax avoidance or the BBC?

[Mark]

One of the problems with BBC channels being on free-to-air satellites, is that people in countrys such as the Republic of Ireland and other European countrys, can easily get a big dish and view them without any license fee.

And that affects you how exactly?

[Bolton Midnight]

Not personally, but a glimpse at the website would indicate it was about the death of Baby "P". What's that got to do with tax avoidance or the BBC?

It was to do with tax being wasted, those ineffectual wastes of air were funded out of my taxes - all of them from the chocolate fire-guard social workers and their bosses down to Baby P's fat slob of a mum and her sick boyfriend.

[Dave B]

It was to do with tax being wasted, those ineffectual wastes of air were funded out of my taxes - all of them from the chocolate fire-guard social workers and their bosses down to Baby P's fat slob of a mum and her sick boyfriend.
The Baby P case was a bloody shambles, there's no doubt about that. But that's to ignore the hundreds or thousands of cases which go right but don't make good headlines. Isolated incidents don't mean that the entire system is broken, or that tax shouldn't be used to fund social workers. Tell you what, as social workers are so useless and shouldn't be state-funded, what are your proposals for reducing or preventing child abuse?

[Bolton Midnight]

They need to pick the right sort of candidates - reading the Guardian for example should immediately bar you from being involved with a child's safety. Climbe case was the same social services, it seems that Haringey Council would be best to sack everyone and start again. Like most councils they have ineptitude running right through them.

[Dave B]

They need to pick the right sort of candidates.
Well duhhhhhh. I don't suppose they're sitting there thinking "let's pick any old duffer off the street". Councils' recruitment for social workers should be top-notch and in the majority of cases which never make the news the employees do do a good job.

The Baby P case represented one specific failing. A catastrophic one, granted, but one isolated incident nonetheless. Climbié was a decade previous, so you can hardly call it endemic.

Nobody's suggesting that improvements aren't possible, but you seemed to be suggesting that the problem was that your taxes have to fund child protection, no?

PS, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with The Guardian. I understood that most council recruitment was done at a local level with the exception of major strategic posts. Maybe your anger should be directed at The Willesden and Brent Times. :s

[Bolton Midnight]

They pick the wrong sort of person, there are cases galore where they have got it wrong, the Lincolnshire chap who was raping his daughters, they visited him time and time again but proved to be absolutely useless. Ex coppers would be a better type of person to recruit or ex military rather than this type of bozo

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/viz1.jpg

AFAIK nobody was dismissed after Climbe, shame because if they had then Baby P may still well be alive today. And to add insult to injury these useless feckers have the brass neck to winge when they are suspended on full pay when it was their incompetence that led to the death of a child under their care.

No I don't mind paying for decent services carried out by capable people, which just isn't the case at present.

You could sack 2m public sector bods and nobody would notice; they are that useless.

[BDunnell]

It was to do with tax being wasted, those ineffectual wastes of air were funded out of my taxes - all of them from the chocolate fire-guard social workers and their bosses down to Baby P's fat slob of a mum and her sick boyfriend.

Are you suggesting that social services be privatised? Get real.

[BDunnell]

They pick the wrong sort of person, there are cases galore where they have got it wrong, the Lincolnshire chap who was raping his daughters, they visited him time and time again but proved to be absolutely useless. Ex coppers would be a better type of person to recruit or ex military rather than this type of bozo

Again, your simplistic attitude seems to know no bounds. It's become the traditional cry of those on the right who lack ideas — 'get ex-policemen or ex-servicemen in, they'll do a good job'. Rubbish. There are many fine individuals in the police and the armed forces, but to suggest that somehow they all represent paragons of excellence from which we could all learn is complete nonsense. Ever heard of institutionalised racism or Deepcut?

[BDunnell]

They need to pick the right sort of candidates - reading the Guardian for example should immediately bar you from being involved with a child's safety.

I read the Guardian. Given that we have never, thank goodness, met, please inform me why I am automatically a danger to children. I find this insinuation deeply offensive.

Unlike all the other questions posed to you in recent days, such as what the nature is of the health business you claim to run (while blowing stale cigarette smoke over its clients) and which top public school you claim to have been taught at (without apparently taking much in), I expect an answer.

[Dave B]

They pick the wrong sort of person, there are cases galore where they have got it wrong,
Could it be that "cases galore" is an overstatement. Nobody's disagreeing that every failing by child services is awful, but you appear to be willfully ignoring the thousands of routine and unremarkable cases which go unreported, where these people do make a positive difference, in favour of a tiny minority of high-profile failings.

There's scope for improvement, I totally and utterly appreciate that, but the wholesale root and branch sacking of all involved is not the answer.

[Bolton Midnight]

If you put a garden gnome in the airing cupboard of every child on the 'at risk' register most would survive, so does that mean that garden gnomes in airing cupboards are just as effective as social workers, no of course not it's just that they don't really make much difference. My step sister was one, she spent most of her time typing up notes and covering her arse.

It really isn't rocket science to see who are the scumbag parents who are likely to harm their kids. They need to go into any interview assuming that the parent is lying, whereas they are such woolly liberals they believe the lies because they want to think they are making a difference.

[Dave B]

I can't believe I'm even debating this, but in for a penny, in for a pound....


It really isn't rocket science to see who are the scumbag parents who are likely to harm their kids.
How? What signs should we be looking for? How should social services decide where to target their recources? How does one decide whether a parent - once identified as a scumbag - is "likely" to harm their kids? You're into real Minority Report territory here :s


They need to go into any interview assuming that the parent is lying, whereas they are such woolly liberals they believe the lies because they want to think they are making a difference.
I'm confused. Should the kids of these obvious scumbags be taken into care without due process? What charges would you bring against these parents - keeping in mind you've got no evidence against them apart from assuming they're lying?

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you? It's like reading Richard Littlejohn, although you'll probably take that as a compliment.

[BDunnell]

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you? It's like reading Richard Littlejohn, although you'll probably take that as a compliment.

He may be put off by the number of syllables in said journalist's surname and not get to the rest of the column, I fear.

[Bolton Midnight]

They pick the right families already but just do sod all with the info, I can't remember a child death that wasn't on frequent visits from social services, they are just blind, and that means kids die, now to me that is not good enough.

Once they have a child on their radar with frequent unexplained injuries they should assume the worst and wait to be convinced otherwise, whereas they are doing it the wrong way round - giving the scumbags the benefit of the doubt where ever possible until the child is killed due to their prolonged torture.

I attended a seminar and SS were basically saying I should be doing their job for them, demanding that a child clean its face if it is covered in chocolate nd maybe covering injuries (as in the Baby P case). Climbe for example was taken to hospital by a nosey taxi driver, yet SS at this seminar were blaming some women at the local housing office who made a comment about her aunt being well turned out and the child being grotty.

SS are experts at trying to pass the buck and covering their useless arses.

[BDunnell]

They pick the right families already but just do sod all with the info, I can't remember a child death that wasn't on frequent visits from social services, they are just blind, and that means kids die, now to me that is not good enough.

Once they have a child on their radar with frequent unexplained injuries they should assume the worst and wait to be convinced otherwise, whereas they are doing it the wrong way round - giving the scumbags the benefit of the doubt where ever possible until the child is killed due to their prolonged torture.

I attended a seminar and SS were basically saying I should be doing their job for them, demanding that a child clean its face if it is covered in chocolate nd maybe covering injuries (as in the Baby P case). Climbe for example was taken to hospital by a nosey taxi driver, yet SS at this seminar were blaming some women at the local housing office who made a comment about her aunt being well turned out and the child being grotty.

SS are experts at trying to pass the buck and covering their useless arses.

Forget this sort of rancid spew, and answer the question I put to you a while back about why I, as a Guardian reader, pose a danger to children.

[Dave B]

I too read The Guardian, along with The Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Mail; as well as taking a feed of headlines from the other major papers which occasionally pique my interest. I'd be most interested to know if I'm suitable to work with children. :p

[Daniel]

I too read The Guardian, along with The Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Mail; as well as taking a feed of headlines from the other major papers which occasionally pique my interest. I'd be most interested to know if I'm suitable to work with children. :p

Judging by the name of your twitter account? No! :p

[MrJan]

This thread is an example of some beautiful interneting, chaps. Love how we've moved from TV programme to TV license to benefit cheats to tax dodgers and finally got to child abuse. Loving your work.

[Mark]

Nazis! Nazis!

There; the circle is complete.

[Dave B]

All we need to do now is slag off Alonso / Hamilton / Schumacher (delete as appropriate) and we're good to go :D

[Daniel]

It's political correctness gone mad.

End of
FACT

[Dave B]

Is this the right room for an arugment [sic]? :p

[Mark]

No it bloomin' well isn't! :mad:

[Bolton Midnight]

This thread is an example of some beautiful interneting, chaps. Love how we've moved from TV programme to TV license to benefit cheats to tax dodgers and finally got to child abuse. Loving your work.

Here is where it went astray


Enjoy it while it lasts, your beloved Conservatives are sowing the seeds of its demise. :(

Seems nobody actually watched Accused, shame as it was cracking tele

[Bolton Midnight]

All we need to do now is slag off Alonso / Hamilton / Schumacher (delete as appropriate) and we're good to go :D

But why, all are fine drivers - unlike the likes of Webber and Jacques Villeneuve who are both pretty crap

[Bolton Midnight]

I too read The Guardian, along with The Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Mail; as well as taking a feed of headlines from the other major papers which occasionally pique my interest. I'd be most interested to know if I'm suitable to work with children. :p

Good that you look at so many, I find the Guardian and Independent wind me up too much with their champagne socialist agendas.

Wanting to believe scumbag parents would be more of an issue than which paper you read, but believing the Guardian would show that you're not very good at detecting lies, which if you were a social worker would be a bad asset.

[BDunnell]

Wanting to believe scumbag parents would be more of an issue than which paper you read, but believing the Guardian would show that you're not very good at detecting lies, which if you were a social worker would be a bad asset.

I will ask you again. Do you genuinely believe that I, as a Guardian reader, should not be allowed around children because I pose a danger to them? It is quite rude not to answer when a specific question is put, especially given the nature of your comments.

[Dave B]

Good that you look at so many, I find the Guardian and Independent wind me up too much with their champagne socialist agendas.

Wanting to believe scumbag parents would be more of an issue than which paper you read, but believing the Guardian would show that you're not very good at detecting lies, which if you were a social worker would be a bad asset.
I don't believe you read The Guardian beyond perhaps scanning the headlines. If you'd like to browse their Comment Is Free section you'll find plenty of comment from what could be termed as the right-wing plus - especially since The Times put up a paywall - a lot of BTL comment from Conservative supporters. Hardly the preserve of the champagne swillers.

Edit: as I type, 2 of the 5 top-viewed CiF contributions are a largely critical piece on Obama, and a harsh look at the views of liberal hero Liu Xiaobo. Socialist agenda? Don't think so!

[Bolton Midnight]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/15/coping-with-redundancy-shock-and-anger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/14/how-many-council-jobs-will-be-lost

Just two articles at random from their front page

where does it say these cuts are necessary
where does it say that the private sector has already faced far bigger cuts
where does it say that Labour increased the size of the public sector far too much just in order to buy votes and massage the unemployment figures
where does it say that 25% of the public sector is made up of worthless non jobs that nobody would miss

it doesn't

QED the Guardian has an agenda and is full of ****

[BDunnell]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/15/coping-with-redundancy-shock-and-anger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/14/how-many-council-jobs-will-be-lost

Just two articles at random from their front page

where does it say these cuts are necessary
where does it say that the private sector has already faced far bigger cuts
where does it say that Labour increased the size of the public sector far too much just in order to buy votes and massage the unemployment figures
where does it say that 25% of the public sector is made up of worthless non jobs that nobody would miss

it doesn't

QED the Guardian has an agenda and is full of ****

Such depth of analysis.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sometimes no analysis is required. The Guardian is left of center. Heck, they take pride in that. Nothing wrong with it either. I know when I read the Guardian, that is the slant they put on the news, just like I know when I read the Wall Street Journal they will have their slant, the Toronto Star will lean to its leftist slant, or the Times of London will be Center right.

Newspapers have always had idealogical slants and news they tend to highlight. It is the way of the world. Somehow though, people always get bent out of shape when people point out the paper THEY like may have a bias.

[BDunnell]

Sometimes no analysis is required. The Guardian is left of center. Heck, they take pride in that. Nothing wrong with it either. I know when I read the Guardian, that is the slant they put on the news, just like I know when I read the Wall Street Journal they will have their slant, the Toronto Star will lean to its leftist slant, or the Times of London will be Center right.

Newspapers have always had idealogical slants and news they tend to highlight. It is the way of the world. Somehow though, people always get bent out of shape when people point out the paper THEY like may have a bias.

I am perfectly happy to hear such analysis when presented in a sensible fashion by someone whose opinions I consider to be worthwhile. As it is, the person making those comments is someone who thinks that those of us on the left present a danger to children.

[Dave B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/15/coping-with-redundancy-shock-and-anger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/dec/14/how-many-council-jobs-will-be-lost

Just two articles at random from their front page
By the same columnist - so hardly a wide-ranging sample.

Anyway, if you'd rather widen the scope of our source material, try:

Tuition fees aren't the only thing Nick Clegg has to be ashamed about (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8201972/Tuition-fees-arent-the-only-thing-Nick-Clegg-has-to-be-ashamed-about.html)

George Osborne’s silence over inflation is worrying (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8202276/George-Osbornes-silence-over-inflation-is-worrying.html)

These health reforms won't cure the NHS (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/These%20health%20reforms%20won't%20cure%20the%20NH S)

All taken from the front page of a newspaper website's comment section, with no searching.

The source may surprise you.

But then I'm sure you'll argue that the Telegraph has an agenda and is full of **** :p

[Bolton Midnight]

Sometimes no analysis is required. The Guardian is left of center. Heck, they take pride in that. Nothing wrong with it either. I know when I read the Guardian, that is the slant they put on the news, just like I know when I read the Wall Street Journal they will have their slant, the Toronto Star will lean to its leftist slant, or the Times of London will be Center right.

Newspapers have always had idealogical slants and news they tend to highlight. It is the way of the world. Somehow though, people always get bent out of shape when people point out the paper THEY like may have a bias.

I agree, hence why I disregard the Guardian as it is written by tossers for tossers.

[Dave B]

I agree, hence why I disregard the Guardian as it is written by tossers for tossers.
A genuine question for you: do you fail to understand why it sometimes seems impossible to engage you in sensible and meaningful debate?

I seldom agree with the likes of fousto or ioan, but at least they tend to provoke stimulating debate without resorting to playground insults.

[BDunnell]

I seldom agree with the likes of fousto or ioan, but at least they tend to provoke stimulating debate without resorting to playground insults.

And especially in this very forum over recent days — both have made high-quality, thought-provoking contributions. Unlike some we won't mention.

[Mark]

You still haven't explained why Guardian readers present a danger to children.

[BDunnell]

You still haven't explained why Guardian readers present a danger to children.

Who, me?

[Bolton Midnight]

You still haven't explained why Guardian readers present a danger to children.

Reading that paper per se isn't the problem, it is being a social worker and reading that paper as it shows you are the wrong type of person to carry out that job.

[BDunnell]

Reading that paper per se isn't the problem, it is being a social worker and reading that paper as it shows you are the wrong type of person to carry out that job.

Which is not what you said.

[Bolton Midnight]

A genuine question for you: do you fail to understand why it sometimes seems impossible to engage you in sensible and meaningful debate?

I seldom agree with the likes of fousto or ioan, but at least they tend to provoke stimulating debate without resorting to playground insults.

I have not insulted people anywhere as near as you and your pal BDunnell have, but lets not facts get in the way eh?

Not my problem if folk are unable to read what is written is it?

My thoughts are those of the majority so perhaps those that disagree need to re think their ideology and wake up and realise they are out of step with the normal thinking UK citizens.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Some people.......is all I am gonna say...some people...

[BDunnell]

Not my problem if folk are unable to read what is written is it?

Yes, if this is due to the poor quality of your written English.

[Dave B]

Yay! Great news for Bolton Midnight! Celebrate good times, come on....



At least 100,000 public servants will receive grim news over the Christmas holidays or soon after as councils, police forces and other public services race to meet a deadline of 1 January to formally announce job cuts.

An analysis of local authority documents reveals that the number of council redundancies directly resulting from the coalition's austerity measures is expected to break the 100,000 mark by early in the new year, fuelled by the swingeing cuts announced this week to councils' budgets and the pressure to start cutting before the new financial year in April.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/16/public-servants-to-lose-jobs


Fantastic! :D

100,000 families facing a bleak future and their Christmasses screwed as an added bonus :s anta: Praise the lord!









FFS :rolleyes:

[Dave B]

Would you like a direct quote from a cabinet minister?


There are a lot of things happening. There is a kind of Maoist revolution happening in a lot of areas like the health service, local government, reform, all this kind of stuff, which is in danger of getting out of control. We are trying to do too many things, actually. Some of them are Lib Dem inspired, but a lot of it is Tory inspired. The problem is not that they are Tory-inspired, but that they haven’t thought them through. We should be putting a brake on it

A "Maoist revolution"? :eek:

Not thought through? :crazy:

The minister in question is Vince Cable, the business secretary. Even he appears to have little or no confidence in some of the government's policies.

(And you can't blame The Guardian for this one. Here's the source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215481/Vince-Cable-I-have-the-nuclear-option-its-like-fighting-a-war.html )

[Mark]

And Cable has said that being in government is 'like fighting a war'. Have to say, without the LibDems fighting against the tory onslaught, we'd all be overrun... They will be remembered..

[Bolton Midnight]

Yay! Great news for Bolton Midnight! Celebrate good times, come on....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/16/public-servants-to-lose-jobs


Fantastic! :D

100,000 families facing a bleak future and their Christmasses screwed as an added bonus :s anta: Praise the lord!


FFS :rolleyes:

100,000 is nowhere near enough, pre 97 the state employed about 2m less than it did when Labour lost the election, it needs to go back to those 97 figures at the very least.

If they want to protect their colleagues jobs then why not take a pay cut like the private sector has? Why because they are selfish parasites who don't understand the real world.

[Bolton Midnight]

And Cable has said that being in government is 'like fighting a war'. Have to say, without the LibDems fighting against the tory onslaught, we'd all be overrun... They will be remembered..

Cable now admitted he was talking crap, he couldn't bring anything down, was just acting Billy Big Bollocks to some under cover reporters - shows a lack of judgement if nothing else.

If he doesn't like it then he can go back to the obscurity he enjoyed before being handed a bit of power.

[Bolton Midnight]

I was going to give my views on the TV program

Good final episode last night

Showed how even though he was originally the injured party the woman will always win in court, so all the blokes got sent down and all the women were free.

Plumber - harsh vedict
Soldier - harsh verdict
Woman arsonist - should have at least been fined for damage she caused
Taxi driver - stalker freak deserved to be sent down
Paedo killer - not real true to life as they'd at least check before kicking him to death

[Dave B]

Showed how even though he was originally the injured party the woman will always win in court, so all the blokes got sent down and all the women were free.
To clarify, because as so often I'm having difficulty with understanding your posts, is this a critique of the programme or are you suggesting that the justice system will routinely side with a woman?

[Bolton Midnight]

the justice system will routinely side with a woman?

That's the chap

The programme reflected that nicely

How can passing forged notes be viewed as a worse offence than torching a wharehouse with somebody in it.