GRIMLY FIENDISH

So, she "deserves" a £60 million yacht just by virtue of the fact that she's not dead yet...? Seriously... That's your argument in a nut-shell.. Are you just a complete moron Chris, or are you actually capable of having a thought not put into your head by The Scum or the Daily Fail...? And, even if she did "deserve" it (which she doesn't, she's Head of State purely by an accident of birth as opposed to having the job on MERIT), her jug-eared, full of shit, adulterer prick of son and his horsey-faced mistress sure as hell DO NOT, and those b'stards would inherit it when Queenie pops her clogs.... You've not really thought this through have you...? :rolleyes: Oh, and I am just LOVING the furious back-peddling Michael "most punchable face in Britain" Gove is now being forced to do on his whole idea of the tax-payer stumping up the money, trying to make out that he wasn't REALLY suggesting the public pick up the tab, when it turned out that the idea was about as popular with the country as drowning every single first-born infant in the Thames.... :lol: :lol: People are not really so willing to kow-tow and play the serf to "her Madge" anymore, and we certainly dont want to hear of crack-pot ideas from their lick-spittle, brown-nosing advocates in Parliament like Gove who is clearly angling for a mention in the next New Years "honours"..... -_- And, just to put things into perspective here, while we're suggesting gifting one pensioner a nice big yacht which she can afford to pay for herself..... Elderly may be told to pay £60,000 for care http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhea...0-for-care.html A report from a working group set up by the Department of Health, seen by The Daily Telegraph, has recommended almost doubling a proposed £35,000 cap on the amount an elderly or disabled person would pay for care over their lifetime. Working adults will be told to take out private insurance or release equity from their properties to cover the future cost of care home places or any help they will need in old age. A national campaign will also “nudge” individuals to prepare for elderly support costs through pension schemes or through buying a home which can be used later to pay care bills. Ministers have been advised to set the cap on lifetime care costs at between £50,000 and £60,000. A decision could be announced when Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, publishes a White Paper on the future of social care in April. Cross-party talks to reach a consensus on care funding are due to begin this week. Mr Lansley, a Conservative, Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat care services minister, and Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall, Labour’s health spokesmen, are due to take part. Currently, there is no limit on the costs that individuals can incur for elderly care and an estimated 20,000 people are forced to sell their homes to pay for residential places each year. Senior government sources have told The Daily Telegraph that the idea of introducing a cap on care costs for the first time is widely seen as a “game changer” for reforming the system. A cap would allow private insurance firms and pensions providers to develop new financial products which working-age adults could buy to protect themselves against care costs in old age. Other recommendations from the Department of Health working group included “regular awareness campaigns” and a joint information drive from the Government and financial services industry to highlight “the importance of planning for care costs” to working adults. It called for “a comprehensive system of social marketing, information, nudges and advice to support financial decisions as people work, retire and grow older”. While people are working, they should be “encouraged to buy a home” and save into their pensions, the report proposed. Financial services firms would offer products to help individuals pay for their care costs, including “insurance, equity release, pensions and savings”. Ministers should introduce clear and consistent national rules for assessing the eligibility of pensioners and disabled adults for care services, the report said. Under the current system, one in 10 pensioners faces care bills of more than £100,000. However, anyone with assets of more than £23,250, including in property, receives no help from the state towards the cost of a care home place. Earlier this month, an unprecedented alliance of more than 60 experts, charities and government advisers warned the Prime Minister in a letter to The Daily Telegraph that the care system is in crisis and needs urgent funding reform. They said 800,000 people were being denied the basic care they needed. When the Coalition took office in 2010, ministers established a commission to draw up recommendations for reforming the way social care is funded to protect pensioners from being forced to sell their homes. Last July, Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, recommended a “cap” on the amount anyone should be expected to pay for care over their lifetimes. His report said “£35,000 is the most appropriate and fair figure”, with the Government stepping in to cover any costs above that. However, the Treasury was believed to be reluctant to meet the cost of a cap at that level. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All pensioners are equal... But some pensioners are more equal than othes.... (apologies to George Orwell) -_-

This is a seriously good film, with a genuinely disturbing theme running through it, one of the very few horror films that I've seen recently that actually gave me chills... Starts off like Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes" or a Ken Loach film, and then ends up being like a cross between "Wicker Man" and Ken Russell's "The Devils".... You especially have to pay attention during the final 15 minutes though, because the explanation is all in the Mise en Scene and what you see (and dont see), and not through some tedious expository dialogue where the baddie outlines the "master plan"... It's good to see a film that treats you like a grown up and lets you figure it out for yourself... So, it gets two big thumbs up from me....

Just got round to watching episode 7 a few days back.. Utterly brilliant, what a pay-off.. This show just gets better and better, and the way it slowly builds up to a crescendo is just absolutely marvellous, with the conclusion of episode seven being so incredibly shocking, but also tragic and moving, you wouldn't think you could feel sympathy for flesh-eating zombies, but the way it's written very deftly achieves just that, leaving us to ponder who the "monsters" actually are. It's so refreshing to see a series that treats its audience like adults and doesn't dumb things down or look for an easy way out.. Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Mad Men and Dexter are absolutely the best things on TV right now as far as I'm concerned, Boss and Homeland were both damn good too... Adult drama of the highest quality....

Probably in a similar way that George Smiley affected things when he was ousted from British Intelligence at the start of "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"... ;)

So, we have this.... Give Queen a new royal yacht for diamond jubilee, says Michael Gove Exclusive: Education secretary proposes taxpayers fund gift – likely to cost at least £60m – to mark 'momentous occasion' (no, Gove, howabout YOU and the rest of the rich Tory w*n**rs pay for the "gift"...?) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/15/q...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Michael Gove (*cough cough* w*n**r *cough*) has brushed aside Britain's economic problems to propose the public donate a new royal yacht to the Queen as a mark of respect during this year's diamond jubilee celebrations, according to a confidential letter to fellow ministers. In the letter, which has been sent to Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary and minister overseeing the celebrations, and to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, Gove at one point comes close to suggesting that Britain's dire economic climate means that a large-scale celebration is required to lift the country's spirits. The education secretary writes: "In spite, and perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees and mark the greater achievement that the diamond anniversary represents." The Liberal Democrats privately expressed surprise at the proposal, which is likely to cost at least £60m, at a time of national austerity. Meanwhile Tom Watson, the Labour party vice-chairman, said: "When school budgets are being slashed, parents will be wondering how Gove came even to suggest this idea." Gove, an enthusiastic monarchist, writes in the letter: "I feel strongly that the diamond jubilee gives us a tremendous opportunity to recognise in a very fitting way the Queen's highly significant contribution to the life of the nation and the Commonwealth." Commenting on draft celebration proposals prepared by Hunt, Gove expresses his reservations at a lack of ambition, saying: "I feel strongly more should be done to achieve a longer lasting legacy. Events such as proms and the party at the palace organised for the diamond jubilee, and street parties, although excellent, are transient. It would be appropriate to do something that will mark the significance of this occasion with fitting ceremony. "My suggestion would be a gift from the nation to her majesty; thinking about David Willetts's excellent suggestion of a royal yacht, and something tangible to commemorate this momentous occasion." He adds: "The year ahead provides an enormous opportunity to showcase the very best of Britain." Hinting at cabinet tensions over the way in which the culture department is focusing so heavily on the Olympics in the year of the jubilee, Gove says: "The diamond jubilee must not be overshadowed by the Olympic Games, but form an integral part of this great year for our country." Some of Gove's extravagant language reveals the difficulties created for politicians by the coincidence of the jubilee and the Olympics, alongside forecasts that the UK economy will slip back into recession this year and see a further severe squeeze on living standards. Labour will be watching for any sign the national celebrations are used by the government to distract from the state of the economy. Gove ends his letter by suggesting that if insufficient taxpayer funds are available a private donation could be sought, before making a naked departmental bid for every schoolchild or school to be given a gift as a permanent reminder of the event. Gove's office confirmed the authenticity of the letter but refused to comment. The royal yacht Britannia was decommissioned by the Labour government in December 1997 and became a visitor attraction in Edinburgh. It was last seen listing after a leak during repairs over the New Year holiday. Various efforts have been made to propose a new royal yacht, but have been rejected on the grounds of cost, estimated in 1997 at £60m. However, during the June celebrations a luxury cruiser boat, the Spirit of Chartwell, which is already being dressed up as a royal barge, will carry the Queen along the Thames as part of a pageant. And as if that wasn't bad enough, we have THIS.... Fury as education secretary Michael Gove rewards teacher pay freeze adviser with bumper pay rise http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics...86908-23680409/ AN EDUCATION spin doctor has been given an £11,000 pay rise. Michael Gove rewarded key aide Dominic Cummings after telling teachers their pensions were being cut and their wages frozen. Cummings now earns a taxpayer-funded £69,266 a year, up from £58,200 just six months ago. Teachers’ unions reacted with fury to the bumper rise. Chris Keates, of the NASUWT, said: “It is unjustifiable for the same people cutting the pay and pensions of public sector workers to approve a significant pay rise for a special adviser.” Mark Serwotka, of the civil service PCS union, added: “With public servants’ jobs, pay and pensions being cut, it’s obscene for ministers to be boosting salaries for their political friends.” Cummings claimed the extra cash wasn’t a pay rise. He said: “It was agreed before I started I would be paid £69,000, and the change happened because of the administrative delay in sorting this out.” It was also revealed that the bill for Government special advisers has hit £5.4million this year, up from £4.5million in the first 11 months of the Con-Dem coalition. Special advisers on the public payroll have risen from 72 to 79 in the past six months as the Tory-led Government have set about slashing public sector jobs. A Whitehall insider claimed other advisers have also received rises – which have been hidden by keeping their pay below the £58,200 limit at which salaries must be declared. Cummings’s rise piled the pressure on to Education Secretary Gove, who is already under fire for his savage treatment of public sector workers. Yesterday, he started another row by claiming those who oppose turning schools into academies are “happy with failure”. Critics of academies, which have more freedom over staffing and pay, argue they suck resources and good pupils from other schools. Gove branded the critics “enemies of promise”. In a speech at an academy in London, he said: “Let’s be clear what these people mean. “Let’s hold their prejudices up to the light. What are they saying? If you’re poor, if you’re Turkish, if you’re Somali, then we don’t expect you to succeed. You will always be second class.” Union boss Keates said there was “not one shred of evidence” that the Government’s plan to turn all schools into academies would raise standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, how to solve a problem like Michael Gove... Gee, I dunno, maybe hit it repeatedly in its smug, supercilious Tory mug with a two-by-four perhaps....? -_-

HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/14/h...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Critics of High Speed 2, the planned £33bn fast rail link between London and the north of England, have been bolstered by a report commissioned by the government and quietly published the day the project's go-ahead was announced. The report, by engineering firm Atkins, estimates the project offers a far poorer return on the taxpayers' investment than an alternative scheme aimed at improving existing lines and services. In a separate development it has been disclosed that Cheryl Gillan, the Welsh secretary, sold her home in Amersham 500 metres from the proposed route two months before the project was approved. An aide said the sale, which leaves her without a constituency home, was necessary because her elderly husband had difficulty with the stairs. Atkins was asked by the Department for Transport "to appraise a set of strategic alternatives to the government's overall proposed high-speed rail strategy for a Y-shaped network linking London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds". The report concludes that a more modest counter-proposal, known as "51m" – referring to the amount critics of HS2 claim the overall cost of the high-speed project represents for each parliamentary constituency in the UK – would give a significantly greater return on investment. It estimates that 51m's proposals to increase long-distance capacity on the west coast main line by lengthening the trains to 12 cars, reducing the number of first-class carriages and running additional peak long-distance services, offered the taxpayer a return of £6.06 for every pound invested. In contrast, the government's official advice is that HS2 will deliver a return of between £1.80 and £2.50 for every pound invested. If the analysis is restricted only to HS2's London to Birmingham route and strips out its wider economic benefits, the benefit-cost ratio falls to 1.4 – below what the government believes is acceptable to justify investment. The former transport secretary,Philip Hammond told the transport select committee: "As rail projects go, a benefit-cost ratio of 2.6 is quite reasonable. If it were to fall much below 1.5, I would certainly be putting it under some very close scrutiny." Critics say much of the government's case for the project's economic contribution is based on the debatable premise that few people work while on trains. The revelation that a government-commissioned report suggests there may be more attractive rail projects than HS2 will give the critics fresh ammunition as they also question claims it will deliver one million jobs by 2020. "There's spin and there's complete fantasy," said Bruce Weston, director of HS2 Action Alliance, which opposes the project and drew up the 51m alternative. "A million new jobs from HS2 is pure fantasy." The transport secretary, Justine Greening, said: "HS2 will deliver up to 26,000 more seats for rail passengers each hour and journey times slashed by as much as half. By attracting passengers off existing rail lines, roads and domestic air services, its benefits will be felt far beyond the network. No amount of tinkering with our Victorian rail infrastructure will deliver this leap in capacity." Weston said Greening's decision "is not even based on the facts in her own report – it's despite them". The view is likely to be shared by Lord Astor, father-in-law of the prime minister and chairman of the Old Berkshire hunt, who said the west coast upgrade was a "perfectly viable alternative" to HS2 that would be "cheaper and faster to take effect". A Department for Transport spokesman said a report found the 51m alternative did not deal with long-term overcrowding on the west coast main line and would cause delays. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is nothing to do with "NIMBY"-ism, I've nothing against the idea of upgrading rail infrastructure, but it would appear that the Govt, and in particular Justine Greening, is being enteirely dishonest about the viability of alternatives.. In short, the Govt is lying... Big surprise there, then.... :lol: :lol: The wider question however is, why on earth should the tax-payer foot the bill for HS2 anyway, isn't the rail network supposed to be privatised..? Why aren't the private rail companies ponying up the the cash...? Isn't the country supposedly skint..? What's with all the talk of "austerity" for the ordinary people when the Govt is pumping massive amounts of public money into a bloated project which doesn't even appear to be anywhere near as economically viable as they're making out that it is....? I think Ms Greening has some serious questions to answer....

And therein lies the problem.. She's basically now got this massive reputation, that most of the directors she now works with are probably too intimidated to actually "direct" her....

HUH?? Good lord, if you actually think Devil Wears Prada is Meryl's best performance, you've clearly never seen Silkwood, Sophie's Choice, A Cry in the Dark, Kramer vs Kramer, Ironweed, The French Liuetenant's Woman, Out of Africa.....

Reform threat to 'gold-plated' private pensions http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/persona...e-pensions.html Hundreds of thousands of private sector workers face seeing the value of their pensions cut under reforms being considered by the government, it has emerged. Ministers are reported to be reconsidering reforms, once deemed too politically difficult, which would involve scrapping inflation protection for final salary schemes. Steve Webb, the pensions minister, has said the protections could be scrapped to help employers reduce their costs.Figures suggest such changes could save employers up to £7 billion a year in pension costs. On Friday night, his comments sparked an angry backlash from unions who warned the minister to “tread very carefully” amid fears they would increase pensioner poverty. But the pensions industry welcomed the proposed reforms first raised in 2002 by the government-commissioned Pickering review. Under the private-sector defined benefit, or “final-salary” schemes, pension incomes are boosted by at least 2.5 per cent a year to protect against rising prices. In Britain it is estimated about two million people are members of the “gold plated” schemes, which allow them to know how much pension income they will receive. This is in stark contrast to other “riskier” contribution schemes, whose members do not enjoy similar guarantees. Mr Webb said that by reducing the “regulatory burden” on companies, firms who operated “entirely voluntary” schemes could “take on a measure of risk”. “That seems like a world we could move towards,” he told the Financial Times. “Clearly indexation is the biggest cost [for companies].” Last week, Royal Dutch Shell announced that it would become the last of Britain's biggest 100 companies to close its final salary pension scheme to new members next year. The Anglo – Dutch oil group said it planned to shut the scheme in order to "reflect market trends in the UK”. Shell's final salary scheme makes payments to about 30,000 pensioners in the UK and about 6,500 current employees are members. Meanwhile thousands of workers at consumer goods company Unilever are expected to stage a series of 24-hour strikes in protest against the company's decision to also close its final salary pension scheme to existing members. Figures from National Association of Pension Funds estimated that just under a fifth of private sector final salary schemes were open to new members, compared with 88 per cent a decade ago. Len McCluskey, general secretary of trade union Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union, labelled the reforms irresponsible. “A pension with no guaranteed increase is not really a proper defined benefit at all, as an absence of increases could easily halve its value,” he said. But Joanne Segars, the chief executive of NAPF, which represents workplace schemes, welcomed the reforms. “This is a practical solution and we have to look at the big picture of what kind of pensions we want people to have,” she said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, not content with impoverishing millions of public sector workers in their old age, the Con'd-'ems scum are set to do the same thing to private sector workers too... WAKE UP PEOPLE. This is not about "private sector vs public sector" workers as the Tabloid media tries to do its old tried and tested method of "divide and conquer", this is clearly about private AND public sector workers being screwed over by Tory scum who only have the interests of the employers and the corporations at heart.. But this is nothing new, pension schemes started to be devalued under Maggie Twatcher (you know, that "nice" lady that Meryl Streep plays from the film, whom you all seem to think is a "woman struggling against adversity and overcoming it.." in true Hollycrap style like she was some kind of Feminist Icon - pmsl), and when the Tories refused to stand up for the Mirror Group pensioners when it was clear that they were victims of fraud, well it also became pretty clear what their attitude would be. Mind you, not that New Lie-bore were any better, basically a bunch of Tories-in-disguise who presided over a similar utterly scandalous attitude towards pensions, and many workers saw their final salary schemes disappear into the ether, or just not be offered at all. And, as it turns out, taking out a Private Pension is no guarantee either, especially when your "pensions manager" is being conned by investment banks into investing in shit-sandwich "derivitives" which have been AAA-rated by the likes of Standard and Poor... Seems to me that the "1%" (wherever they stand on the political divide) are hell-bent on basically depriving the rest of us of a decent pension in our old age.. Basically the only people that seem to be "entitled" to decent pensions are Politicians, City Bankers and Corporate Execs..... Everyone else is gonna be thrown under a bus.... -_-

Ken Clarke is ready to betray 800 years of British justice http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...P=FBCNETTXT9038 First, the UK Bill of Rights Commission: has anyone seen it? Are we quite sure it exists in corporeal form? Do we know where its members meet? How come people are forming the impression that the UK Bill of Rights Commission is doing rather less for the public good than a home counties bridge party? These questions haunt me because Kenneth Clarke, the secretary of state for justice, the man who set up the commission last spring to investigate a new bill of rights – no doubt with half an eye on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015 – is also responsible for the justice and security green paper, which threatens to deprive us of one of the vital traditions of common law, guaranteed by Magna Carta. You could dignify this with the word irony, but it is just the usual story of politics and hypocrisy. While pacifying those who worry about liberty with a footling commission, composed largely of lawyers from left and right, who cancel each other out, Clarke proposes a vast extension of secrecy in the civil courts and inquests, which will suppress evidence of corruption and negligence in high places, as well as reduce access to justice and the public's right to know. Sometimes, I wonder if Clarke, who is a QC, read the paper before it was published last autumn, because it is arguably more menacing to our legal traditions than anything dreamed up by his predecessor, Jack Straw. But he must have read it. Indeed, the high commands of the major parties have all read and apparently support the proposals that, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, amount to a historic betrayal of the principles of open justice. Apart from the Tory MP David Davis, there is barely a whisper of opposition to the shoddy, self-serving and manifestly illiberal measures, which Clarke claims will improve executive accountability and provide "a court system equipped to deal with sensitive material and intelligence services that are able to get on with their job". There you have the lies summarised. Now let's look at what the proposals will actually mean. The most important point is that Clarke will provide a magic cloak of protection for any minister or government agency that wishes to cover up a wrong, most significantly for members of the intelligence services. Under his law, evidence that British officials were involved in the rendition and torture of British resident Binyam Mohammed could have been suppressed. Evidence that emerged last autumn that British spies arranged the rendition of two Libyan opposition figures to Gaddafi's people for torture may not, if Clarke gets his way, be heard in an open British court, because the minister will be able to declare the material "sensitive" or "against the public interest". Those are vague concepts. Anything can be thus defined: the death of someone in police custody, the contamination resulting from a nuclear accident, the details of a government contract, or security lapses in a government laboratory, to say little of the matter of gentlemen with Muslim names being conveyed to some fetid, bloodstained cellar. Executive accountability will be reduced, not improved. Once Clarke's apparatus is in place, it is likely to encourage a sense of immunity in officials, possibly the idea that they are above the law. The result will be a worse-run country, where the state grows incrementally more heedless and irresponsible – exactly the argument I made against, among other things, Jack Straw's proposal for secret inquests. Over the last six years, I have stressed the dangers of the tendency of illiberal practices to spread through the system, after being introduced to deal with one discrete issue. Following controversy over the deportation of terror suspects, Labour established the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and introduced the "closed material procedure", which allowed evidence to be withheld from the individual and his legal team. Instead, it was revealed to a special advocate who supposedly protected the individual's interests, yet wasn't allowed any contact with him or his lawyers. This shameful arrangement spread quickly. In numerous other contexts, the state used the "sensitive" label to make sure that evidence was not disclosed to the other party. Clarke's innovations will mean that closed material procedures and special advocates will become much more common in civil courts and inquests, denying the public knowledge of the misbehaviour and mistakes of officials – the people we pay for with our taxes. Our servants! It is retrograde and condescending in the extreme, but, worse still, it breaks the promise in Magna Carta, which says: "To no man will we sell, delay or deny justice." Dinah Rose QC summarised the obvious advantage to ministers in her Atkin Memorial lecture last year. The legislation would, she said, "permit courts to try common law claims for damages using a closed material procedure, whenever a government minister, who is, of course, likely to be party to the action, decides that disclosure of particular material would be damaging to national security". We are following America, where the state secrets privilege results in the exclusion of evidence from the proceedings simply on the basis of affidavits delivered to a court by the government, and this is going to make life very difficult for serious journalism in Britain. A response to the green paper from Guardian News and Media, owners of this newspaper, says Clarke's proposal would have a serious impact on the judicial process, court reporting and public interest journalism. Closed hearings, secret evidence and secret pleadings and judgments will result in the indefinite removal of information from the public domain. The green paper is designed almost shamelessly to prevent information concerning such things as British involvement in Binyam Mohammed's torture reaching us. That motive tells you all you need to know about the rottenness of the proposal and why we should follow the example of the many special advocates who have voiced their opposition. Clarke's fall-back position will probably be to guarantee the intelligence services immunity from scrutiny in open court, but given the absolute lack of opposition in Parliament he may get everything he wants, in which case we will all be worse off. Which brings me to the UK Bill of Rights Commission and my conviction that if we are to have a new bill of rights, it is the public who must wrest this process from the lawyers, academics and former civil servants, working away to boost the credentials of politicians at the next election. Just as capitalism needs reform, so do the mechanisms that guarantee freedom, scrutiny and accountability. The English gave Magna Carta to the world 800 years ago; now we need to update it properly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yep, Clarkie really IS just as bad as the rest of them..... <_<

That's about all this film is good for - another Oscar nomination for Meryl....

Actually, the one positive thing that could come out of this story is that it will put pressure on Steven Hester at RBS to forego his bonus as well, seeing as how RBS has also performed abysmally and now even more thousands of jobs are on the line... But I wont exactly hold my breath..... <_<

Yup, that's pretty much it in a nut-shell, if one of the Science Nerds had done this, I have no doubt at all they'd've been thrown out of school and sent down to Juvie Hall.... -_-

He copped a plea, you know as well as I do that rape is notoriously difficult to prove (I believe one in twenty cases actually results in a conviction...). He certainly did something to the girl, he admitted a lesser charge of assault.. Doesn't alter the fact that he shouldn't have been allowed back into the shool or to the team...

That's about the size of it... I tell you what I'm getting heartily sick of. All this rubbish pouring out of the mainstream media and politicians that we should "lay off the big bankers", or that the "poor bankers are having a hard time"... FUKK OFF.... I somehow dont think that the "poor bankers" are having as hard a time as the unemployed, the poor, the people who were sold shit and incredibly dodgy mortgages and had their homes re-possessed or the sick and disabled who are now facing the real prospect of their benefits being cut so we can pay for the mistakes made by these f**king crooked banker scum.... <_< If you think I'm kidding, look at some of the shite that people like Ben Bernanke, Jamie Dimon and Jon Corzine are coming away with to try and defend themselves and their actions.. The best one had to be Dimon's particularly puffed-up pronouncement of "we're doing God's work".... HUH??? Which "god" are you worshipping, Jamie..?? Mammon, probably.... -_-

The real outrage is letting a rapist back onto school property or the team so he can have the opportunity to do it again to another cheerleader.. This simply wouldn't be allowed to happen in UK schools..

Oh, great, so, it's "Margaret - one woman's struggle against adversity in a male-dominated world", please, gimme a break.... As if she was some kind of "Feminist Icon" or something..... lol

Of course it's fake money. It's not backed by anything of any worth or value. Gold/Silver has intrinsic value, paper/fiat is effectively worthless... Gold's value has gone up, whereas when you look at the shares of the big banks like Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Bank of America, etc, they've all tanked as have their investment "products" because they're basically junk being sold as something they're not... If anyone is being dishonest and crooked, it's the big banks, the banks have put us into the situtation we now find ourselves, now it's time to cut them loose and let them fail if that is what the markets decide... Ron Paul wants to let the banks stand or fall on their own without any Federal bail-outs, surely that is the definition of a "free market", not allowing banks that are "too big to fail".... So, it really all depends on what your economics tutor arguing for... Is he actually a "Free Enterprise" supporter (in which case he should not be in favour of bail-outs or the current form of QE at all), or, as I rather suspect, a "Crony Capitalist/Corpratist" who thinks that endless tax-payer bail-outs to help the rich while the poor are stuck with "austerity" is the road to go down... I just want to make it clear that I'm not really being a cheer-leader for Ron Paul. But, surely there's something incredibly WRONG in the fact that some of what Ron Paul says is actually a bit more revolutionary and progressive than the shite that's coming out of the mouth of a supposed "progressive" like Barack Obama.. The fact also that the "liberal mafia" in Hollywood are being apologists for Obama is something else I find disgusting.. The things they criticised Bush for, Obama is presiding over worse things. The Indefinite Detention Act is WAY worse than the Patriot Act, SOPA is just a total sop for Hollywood and the Film Industry, billions of internet users over the world basically being f**ked to benefit the western Film and Music Industry, who make billions anyway. This is the kind of protectionism and rampant censor-shit that so-called "liberals" should surely be against.. Oh, and let's not forget, that some time this year, there is the very real possibility of a war against Iran.. For almost the same incredibly dubious reasons as the war against Iraq.... "Liberals" who make apologies for this Obama admin, where they were attacking Bush Jr, are just full of shit as far as I'm concerned.... There clearly needs to be a "Third Force" in US politics, hopefully something that will rise out of the "Occupy" movement and start off on a grass-roots state level, and grow....

Downfall was hardly de-politicised as such though... And, well, they didn't really take the war out of it.

The fact that it's not a "political insight" is surely the problem.. One reviewer called it "Thatcher without the Thatcherism", which is a bit like making a film about Hitler and kind of missing out all the "Nazi stuff"... But, hey, I guess this is what happens when you let the director of vapid fluff like "Mamma Mia" direct a film about an important political and historical figure, instead of getting someone like Ken Loach or Mike Leigh who both have incredible track records (as well as a fair few BAFTAs between them) for making films with deep and meaningful social statements....

...And also, we seem to be missing out the fact here that Obama, a supposed "progressive" is signing off on horrendous legislation such as the indefinited detention act and SOPA..... I would think that ANY opposition to these "Constitution-destroying" pieces of legislation should really be the most important issue here... Paul is opposed to both of these, so, I would say that in the interests of basic preservation of democratic rights, then he should be the guy Americans should vote for.. We can argue the toss about anything else later, but as soon as these pieces of legislation bite, then it's pretty much "goodnight Vienna", and it wont really matter who you vote for in the future.... -_-

Hmmm, well the Fed obviously has a very strange definition of "intervention" then.. Last time I looked, "intervention" didn't mean "rolling over and just letting people crap all over you"...... Yeah, I've heard that argument in favour of QE, and if it actually HAD any benefits for ordinary people, I might agree with you, unfortunately all QE has done is to print billions of fake money which the banks have sat on and haven't lent out to small businesses. At all... You'd've been just as well using the QE money and just given it to ordinary people in an equal share-out, instead of just letting the banks keep it on their (im)balance sheets... So, if you're going to use Keynsianism, use it properly, as FDR did.... I dont even like Ron Paul that much, but really, at least he's making some of the right noises, unlike the other GOP candidates who are obsessed with relatively trivial issues like gay marriage and gays in the military and dont seem to be paying any attention to the real issues, which is the economy and unemployment. I suspect the likes of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum dont even understand the economy or the issues concerned, which is why they seem to be avoiding tackling the whole issue... Ron Paul at least "gets" the fact the the economy and jobs are the heart of this whole thing... And, unlike O-bomber, he seems to actually want to do something about the corruption which is standing in the way of America's recovery...

I will never, EVER agree with the Falklands, it was just another Colonialist "war" and Thatcher committed at least one war crime (on the Belgrano), if we were that concerned for our "subjects" (we're not "citizens" as you well know, because we have a monarchy), then we should've air-lifted them out of there and brought them home... But I dont want to get drawn on it. As far as the film goes, I'm curious, but not curious enough to spend a tenner going to see it.. I think a "curious download" may be on the cards sometime soon as a decent copy becomes available....

How Thatcher's election win launched secret war on CND http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...nd-6286326.html An army intelligence unit was used to infiltrate civil rights groups and protest organisations after Margaret Thatcher came to power. Former soldiers claim that they were ordered to undertake the spying missions by a senior officer in the Ministry of Defence. The activities of 20 Security Company (V) after the Tories won the 1979 election had not hitherto been revealed. Some of its members have now spoken for the first time about how the military was used against civic organisations such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Pledge Union. The revelations about the secret war against those regarded as "the enemy within" – including the use of agent provocateurs – comes at a time of increased interest in the Thatcher years with the release of The Iron Lady, starring Meryl Streep, today. The instruction to 20 COY, a Territorial Army body which had focused on Northern Ireland, the Middle East and the British Army of the Rhine, came in a memo from a General in September 1979: "The change of government provides an excellent opportunity for the unit to play a more active role and to provide information about groups whose activities and interests are not beneficial and are opposed to the armed forces. The unit is well placed to do this because its members are civilians." An operations room was set up at a building in north London. A former sergeant with the unit said: "The ops room's desks and walls were strewn with political newspapers, newsletters and leaflets, card collation files and annotated street maps. Those targeted were pacifists, anti-arms trade, anti-nuclear, radical and socialist organisations. So you had groups like the Peace Pledge Union, Troops Out and CND branches. "Most of the meetings of these groups were held conveniently nearby in London like Hackney, Holborn, Camden and the well known King's Head pub in Islington." Some of the undercover soldiers became officials in the organisations they had infiltrated, one being elected membership secretary. The former sergeant said: "On one occasion one of them was chanting anti-military slogans with a crowd opposite the entrance to the Royal Tournament at Earl's Court, while slipping away periodically to the 20 COY office inside to give updates. One hesitates to use the word 'provocateur'." Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, acknowledged after leaving the service that there had been "over-enthusiasm" in targeting left-wing groups during the early Thatcher years. "Files were opened on people who were not actively threatening the state." Another former soldier of 20 COY, who now lives outside England, told The Independent: "We knew that MI5 and SB [special Branch] were doing all kinds of things at the time. But the difference is that we were the Army, we were happy to go on undercover ops in Northern Ireland where there was a genuine terrorist threat. It simply wasn't our business to be spying on fellow citizens simply because the government did not like them. Sir Martin Furnival Jones, one of Ms Rimington's predecessors at MI5, had revealed that a plot against Harold Wilson's government involved senior civil servants and military officers, and the name of a major-general was given to the then Home Secretary, later Prime Minister, James Callaghan. No one was prosecuted. "They were" said Sir Martin, "a pretty loony crew." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'd always suspected that there had been 'dirty tricks' employed by Thatcher against the CND and other civil rights groups, but it sure is nice to have the concrete proof coming out at last. And this, and the other revelations, really does put this whole "Iron Lady" hype into some kind of perspective, and hopefully doese make it crystal clear to youngsters today just why it is that people of my generation continue to despise Thatcher and everything that she ever stood for, and why it is we find it a gross insult for a bunch of ignorant Hollywood w*n**rs to come along and do the sort of revisionist "history" on this era in a fashion that would do Stalin and Goebbels proud... F**k Hollywood, f**k "The Iron Lady", f**k Meryl Streep. THESE and the other released documents are the FACTS.. And dont let a bunch of upper-middle-class Meeeeedjaaaahhhhh "luvvies" tell you otherwise..... -_-

Ron Paul has stated that he would "End the Fed", he's publically stated that.. The Fed Bank, and in particular Ben Bernanke and Tim Gheitner, is almost certainly a massive part of the problem in the US. The Fed serves the interests of the big banks like J P Morgan, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs and not the interests of the majority of Americans... END THE FED... FUKK QUANTITIVE EASING...