Blimey was that on expenses too??

Oh yeah and one other thing on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki front….

Russia had just declared war on Japan, if they had time to deploy their troops then you would not only have been looking at an Iron Curtain in Europe, but also at one in Asia, with all the resultant loss of life that that caused, (not to mention freedom).

All in all there may well have been an indecent haste to try the new toys out, but the reasoning is nowhere near as cyncial as some people seem to suggest. If there were “benefits” to be gained, it would have been criminal not to take the lessons that were available from the exercise and use them.

hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children died in his stead, vapourised, burned, or radiated to death

Like I said :-

…….try to remember that neither we nor the US started the conflict, or had any desire whatsoever to be involved in it. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time and chose not to.

So the options were :-

a) Give up and go home
b) Blockade the country (much easier said than done incidentally, remember a certain A. Hitler tried it on us for quite a while and failed)
c) Invade with resultant massive loss of life on both sides.
d) Deploy new super weapon that is so powerful that it will convince this fanatical enemy to give up without any further bloodshed.

If you read up on the battles for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa etc etc, its pretty easy to see why the Yanks were reticent to go for invading the mainland, and chose the nuke option instead. Arguable whether an off the coast demonstration followed by an ultimatum may have done the trick, but notice that one bombed city on its own didn’t either.

NB: Possession of a weapon of itself is not a deterrant. Its possesion and the will to use it that counts.

I was thinking more from within his own party to be fair…

isn’t it perhaps time to look at a new strategy to guarantee a world free of the threat of nuclear war ?

What like an interntional nuclear non proliferation treaty, a complete ban on testing and international political pressure brought to bear on new entrants not to enter the club whilst also reducing your own arsenal in proportion with everyone elses reductions for example?

Oh sorry didn’t read the thread, apparently the STW massif don’t see that as a way forward.

Incidentally, my father in law was a POW in Kobi at the time of the two bombs being dropped on Japan. He had been taken prisoner at the fall of Hong Kong. He was taken with the survivors of the 1000 other members of his battalion. He was used as slave labour to repair the airport, then put on a “hellship”, the Lisbon Maru and sent to Japan. The boat was torpedoed enroute by the yanks, and the Japanese bolted them into the holds as the ship foundered. When the men in hold he was in broke out the Japanese machine gunned them in the water. He escaped to a nearby island where he was recaptured, and subsequently shipped to Kobi, where he spent the remainder of the war until liberation. He was one of 92 men to survive this ordeal in his battalion. HE was 6’1″ tall when he joined up and a strapping great farm labourer. When he was freed he weighed just over 4 1/2 stone. My wife and children, and my brothers in law and their families owe their lives to the fact that the decision was made not to prevaricate, as do thousands upon thousands of others in similar situations.

Read the history, check the facts and then criticise the decisions, rather than post up some ridiculous crepe about some obscure conspiracy theory. Check the facts yourself, Google Lisbon Maru, his name was Claude Elmy.

Finally, try to remember that neither we nor the US started the conflict, or had any desire whatsoever to be involved in it. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time and chose not to.

There is a real chance that the chinless one may have shot himself in the foot. His lot are hardly likely to agree to some of the reforms that he is proposing, so despite the careful non committal terminology being used, non delivery could blow up in his face and give the opposition a bat to blat him with.

No real problem with talent shows, just boils my piss that they deliberately leave absolute twunts in so that the audience can laugh at them and Simon Cowell can get a rise by slating them. Absoloute shite

🙄 Kin hell TS……you barsteward I expected a punchline at the very least. You’re a very naughty boy!

AS I said on the other thread, the insitution of the Catholic Church should be on the Sex Offenders register.

Dog owners…… don’t get me started GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

On my local ride I’ve seen one wandering past a sign that says “Nature Conservation Area Keep all Dogs on a short lead” whilst saying “oh bless him look hes found something to chase in the bushes” FFS!!!#

I’ve been bitten by an Old English (Dulux) Sheepdog, much to the annoyance of the owner, who apparently thought a cyclist might give it stomach upset or something, and I’ve been taken off the bike at about 25mph by a dog running out in front of me again in an area not only marked as a cycle trail, but also signed no dogs allowed.

Routinely, any ride within 150yards of a road will stink of piss and dog crap, mainly because the idle bar stewards find it too much to walk any further.

I want a campaign to do away with the phrase taking the dog for a walk and to replace it with taking the dog for a Sh !te on someone elses turf…. GRRRRRRRRRRRR

And don’t get me started on the hanging the bag of crap in a tree nonsense,

And before some holier than though todger comes along, I am a pet owner and fully respectful of others on the trails at all times. Is it too much to expect that to be reciprocated with a little consideration coming my way though?

Silicone implants are a bad plan for a surfist, on the basis that they float!

I’m guessing they are therefore real.

Nothing whatsoever to do with a burning desire for them to be obviously…

That needs a wider audience Kimbers, may I suggest a bit of viral work be done by the STW massif? I’ve started it.

Top marks fella.

G

Yep, soz if that was a bit aggresive, but from my viewpoint having suffered from abuse as a child, (fortunately not in the bottom area, or of the fiddling variety), I have fairly strong views on the subject. Did seem to me that there was a general movement on the thread towards excusing it. Simply put regardless of the motivations the innocence of childhood is in my view sacrosanct and there is no excuse whatsoever for breaching that, most especially from those who should be defending it.

Catholic Church = Totally and utterly discredited IMHO, and frankly that goes for most organised religions.

It is a testimony to the power that they wield that anyone anywhere actually has anything to do with this seedy corrupt anacronism. (NB: Refer to comments on the thread about our political system regarding William the Conqueror dishing out 25% of the country to the feckers. Same issue and its a total load of crap perpetuated by the Aristocracy and the Bourgeoisie to maintain the status quo.) Yes that is Marxist, and he was not wrong on this point.

Thats not the same as dishing individuals beliefs incidentally, I’m just dishing the club they belong to. I’m sure there are lots of great religious folk around, its when they get together the crap starts to happen.

Personally I think the Church should be dealt with in a secular fashion through the normal process of law, and pursued relentlessly. I’d put the entire organisation on the Sex Offenders register for starters.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER FOR THIS SORT OF INSTIUTIONALSIED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. I CHALLENGE ANYONE ON HERE TO OPENLY DEFEND IT.

I stand open for correction, but I think you will find that the majority of the sexual abuse is male on male……. besides if they banned em all they’d run out of Church!

The Pope wanted Catholics to pray for the “mercy of God for the victims of the grave situations caused by the moral and sexual conduct of a very small part of the clergy”, he said.

SO ONE IN 25 IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE CLERGY….. OH RIGHT SILLY OLD ME AND THERE WAS ME THINKING IT WAS SOMETHING SERIOUS!!!

“with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” …………….which is irrelevant to child abuse

Oh right, so the buggery of boys isn’t an issue then? Mind you I quite agree that homosexuality doesn’t make you beat kids, or starve them so they could quite reasonably throw the noose a tad further. In fact I reckon the very fact that you want to be a priest/nun/monk should automatically disqualify you from being one.

Perhaps the celibate lifestyle isn’t all its cracked up to be…..

konabunny – Member

People with faith don’t want or need evidence

I thought that was pretty much what I’d said.

I think people are quite clear on the difference between the concept of god and the worldly realisation of religion.

Apparently not, otherwise why on earth would they continue to subscribe to what is so clearly and demonstrably and “ungodly” organisation?

I suspect an application of The Marquess of Queensburys’ tactic with libel may be the best way to go on this one. Burden of proof being with the plaintiff not the defendant.

Yeah, but which is which?

G

I have a simple question for any folks of religious conviction on here. Not a pop or anything, just a straight question.

Has any of the above made you question your fundamental beliefs at all?

Personally there is no way I could ever continue to subscribe to catholicism in light of this, but then I I wans never a catholic and I gave up on any form of god bothering a long time ago having spotted a few fundamental flaws in the concepts, i.e. religion = traditional version of conspiracy theory. Absolute rubbish but due the nature of it difficult to either prove or disprove, and lack of prrof is taken as evidence.

Hmmmmm,

Is there a rule that we can introduce that refers to the incessant attempts by Thatcherite’s to head off what she is blatantly responsible for, when they illicit the rather repetative mantra which generally goes along the lines of “someone’ll be along in a minute to blame Thatcher”, or “spose it’ll all be Thatchers fault”. In the forlorn hope that this eradite use of language will ensure that every other thinking person will ignore the ample evidence and simply agree that she did nothing but good, and skipped through the meadows picking buttercups and making daisy chains throughout her premiership. That nothing whatsoever in her remarkable period in office had any impact beyone her resignation, and that no party ever has deliberately or otherwise left a time bomb for their successors and so on and so forth.

Whaderyerreckon Huh huh??? Plan or what????

(No offence Kimbers, yours was actually better than most and could be interpreted either way. I chose the realistic option myself.)

PS found this definition of conservative that kind of sums them up :

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

PR would be a big improvement also.

What? Consensus rather than adversarial, whatever next….. you’ll be giving women the vote next! 😉

I like the idea of a senior house, and I like the honours system. Personally I see no reason whatsoever, why someone awarded a kighthood or whatever shouldn’t qualify to stand for the senior house.

The democratic process from there is harder to suss out though.

Right on Binners couldn’t agree more.

Another good plan IMHO, is to pass legislation to the effect that to represent a constiuency you should, except in exceptional circumstances be resident in it and have been so for a minimum period of say 5 years or 5 out of the last ten or something of that ilk.

Not unresonable that we have a local parliament for local people so to speak IMHO, and I think that satisfactorily bypasses the 2nd homes issue.

Now I really am going to do some work, honest!

I see where you are going with the education thing BD. Not far behind you on that one. Personally I would do away with years and go for a grade system, whereby you have to pass Grade 1 to go to Grade 2 etc. That I think falls in with your general point.

I also tend to favour the old Grammer and Secondary Modern system, where people were funneled into their approrpriate level. Albeit I would like to see more freedom of movement between levels and for longer, and I would like to see it extended so that there were direct equivalencies and crossovers from academic to technical and vice versa.

Basically all through to recognise that a plum in the mouth accent or wearing a hoody and eating chips too much, does not automatically equate to an indication of latent potential.

That apart I really would ride rough shod through the whole tradition in Government thing and shake the cobwebs out.

Simply put, a reasonable definition of insanity is to do something that doesn’t work, and then to constantly repeat it expecting a different outcome. I suspect most of todays burning issues would be covered by that statement.

…… and now I must work.

Bye

I really deep down hate to admit this, but I can’t help myself in agreeing with some of what Rude Boy says.

My overall point is that our system of government is clearly not representative and clearly does discriminate in many ways.

There was an extremely interesting statistic quoted at the end of the 1066 Middle Earth, last night which said :- Post the Battle of Hastings William the Conquerer took 50% of the country for himself, gave 25% to the Church and gave the remainder to 190 of his nobles. Today 20% of the country is still owned by their descendants.

In essence our political system is still based on outdated premises and needs to be given a thorough shake.

In respect of the Oxbridge thing, my point there is I am very happy to have the best brains being funneled into the best academic institutions, and the best brains to be running the country. However the reality is that that this is patently not the case, and rank and privilige have an excessive say in outcomes. A great example is in fact John Prescott, who, love him or hate him had relatively humble beginnings, but was spotted by an egalitarian system and pushed into the Oxbridge system and rose to the postion that he attained as a result. He is the exception that proves the rule IMHO. Juxtapose this with Baronet Cameron, and his side kick who are a product of the old system, and then think through the chances of real change.

Right now there is a huge opportunity for change for the good, but I wouldn’t mind betting you that the “establishment” will be in there doing its level best to stifle it.

PS All of the above is as best I can manage sans party politics

PPS I also find it difficult to understand folks who are disadvanataged by the current system arguing against change here and elsewhere, (in that I am presuming that few if any of the contributers above ever had any realsitic chance of aspiring to Eton, Harrow, Oxford, Cambridge etc etc.,). Obviously I may very well be wrong.

In essense Bush won this competition with the voters as a “down to earth guy”

To be fair I think you will find it had more to do with vote rigging and the fact his brother was the returning officer for Florida or something very similar.

{quote]G, while there is some truth in what you say, it isn’t the accurate sort of truth. 27% of MPs went to Oxbridge, 23% of the members of the government (in 2005)[/quote]

Fair one.

However, the MMC determine a monopoly to be 25% of any given market, so it can still be reasonably argued that the old boy network has a monopoly and a strangle hold, so please excuse me my slip and lets try to stick with the main thrust.

Allied to that if you check it out you will find that Oxbridge do not operate open access policies, and accordingly you can very easily level the accusation that it is another throw back to our colonial past and the class system which excludes the “man on the clapham omnibus” getting a fair shake, which is my underlying point.

It is an agreement that we have amongst ourselves about how we choose our own government.
I’m calling you on this, because it’s important. Unlike a significant proportion of the world, we have universal suffrage, free and fair elections, a free and diverse press, transparent legal apparatus for the conduct of elections and an independent judiciary. It is almost as near to true here and today as it has been anywhere ever.

My point is in the most general sense of the term government we don’t have the right to choose our system of government. Firstly at every election the majority of people don’t vote for the government in power. Secondly, the whole system operates around the old boy network. That is why the majority of MP’s are ex Oxbridge. That’s at the root of the whole scandal that we are going through at the moment, a system of priviliges based on a corrupt and discredited system, you know the one? The one where one couldn’t possibly challenge a gentlemans honour and his word is his bond etc etc. Thus my point that one set of rules applies to all. i.e. if an MP or anyones elses is word is his bond, why should that not equally apply to the chav on the street corner??? The evidence is clearly on the chav’s side of that equation as things stand!! However, lets all gorw up and acknowledge that we’re all human and it is human to err. So lets have a set of rules that encompasses that simple fact.

I really do hope that real and genuine change does come about through the publics anger at this. I do have my doubts though, if the status quo doesn’t get a right kicking first.

How about a limiot on the length of time anyone can be in Parliament? And how about an elected senior house to oversee Parliament, you know the sort of thing, somewhere where the Martin Bells and Ester Rantzens can oversee the feckers.

It is an agreement that we have amongst ourselves about how we choose our own government.

Oh how I wish this were true.

Not sure I agree with this. Just because its difficult to explain doesn’t mean its a bad thing.

If the people its aimed at don’t understand it how does that work? I didn’t say it was necessarily bad per se, just that if people don’t get it thats bad.

Acknowledge that we’ve already got enough rules and laws, so move to a system where its one law in one law out. Preferably more out.

Overall a move away from jobsworthiness to more personal responsibility.

All new legislation to work on the basis that if the public find it complicated to understand then it probably is too complicated.

One set of rules to appply to all

Justice needs to be proportionate, effective, cheap and quick. Without any one of these things its not just.

Tax cuts for cyclists

Get shot of the old order (including the Royals), who just happen to be at the pinnicle of the pyramid of money grubbing bastards in our current system of government.

and breathe……

Right to roam legislation, with specific reference to cyclist’s being given more access to offroad routes.

Any chance the fella simply made a mistake?

It does happen. My Mrs did it this weekend, and was so guilty about it that she drove to the local nick to grass herself up. However when she got there some twunt who had been behind her at the time, drove past and gave her a mouthful of abuse, which salved her conscience sufficently for her to give up her foolishness and come home.

Personally I wish she’d carried it through, then I might have got away without doing any DIY this weekend.

News Of The World in sensationalist reporting shocker.

Surprised anyone here actually spotted it. Always thought STW readers were well above that standard of reporting…. you know already onto Beano, Dandy etc

Amen

Like I said on the other Sad Leeds thread

Whats have Leeds United and Shahid Malik got in common?

Two things, both have had a good time without paying for it, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

In both cases a well deserved roosting too IMHO

And thats also the answer to the two questions why do people “hate” Leeds?and not trust Politician’s?

Absolutely agree there BD.

Thats why I think its really important that the issue gets headed off at the pass, but I fear that between lack of effective leadership, and the stupidty of the “I’m going to vote for the BNP/UKIP to teach them a lesson” brigade its going to get worse before it gets better.

I do however, hope that at the end of it the fundamental rottenness in our society has taken a bit of a hiding.

All true enough, I just think that this may just be a bridge too far for people to stomach, given all the other crepe they are having to pay out for… Fred Goodwins Pension, bailing out city slickers etc etc, and for that reason I think the absence of proper clear cut rules, (i.e. no formal constitution), will lead to many MP’s who ought to be hung out to dry, escaping without real punishment. My senses tell me that if that happens Mr and Mrs Average’s piss will spontaneously boil.

At some point the worm will turn! Can’t happen soon enough IMHO

Do you remember the Poll tax riots?

If not you will find that it did actually force a stornger government to climb down and change direction. The reason that happened is because there was a wide spread sense of injustice over the policy, not just a few “oiks” getting stroppy in Trafalagar Square. The ground swell over this one is far greater than it ever was with the Poll Tax. The difference here is that a policy change will not cut it. You really have got an issue, where its almost impossible to resolve the matter satisfactorily under the current system. Parliamentry Privilige makes it very difficult to take action against an MP, and once people figure out that they are pretty much going to get away with it the level of outrage will grow, especially at a time when everyone else is losing jobs, and belt tightening. Apart from GB demanding all MP’s expose their expense records, and then going to the polls once that information is out I can’t see how anything else will do.

Right now you are looking at the possibility of some pretty strange election results, which may well leave us with the BNP or perhaps worse UKIP representing us in Europe. How much of a crisis do you need before you call it one?

PS: The GB jibe was tongue in cheek BD, never personal, hope that was obvious.

sootyandjim said

Unfortunately if no one votes then the bugger who currently holds the seat remains in it for another term.

Thats the point of having an abstention vote obviously. Its not that no one has voted, it is that they have rejected the candidates on offer. As things stand at the moment I’m prepared to guarantee you that Abstain would win most seats at the current European and Local elections.

BigDummy – said

And this is not a “constitutional crisis” in any meaningful sense

In what way is a considerable contingent of the governing house being shown to be corrupt, with the attendant public outrage, and the systemic inability to act upon it not a constituional crisis? Point 1 we don’t have a written constituion, thus enabling the thieving bastards to duck, dive and make up archaic rules as they go. Point 2 Do you honestly believe this will just die down and go away? (Might I guess from that, that you are close to GB by any chance?)

I reckon this country is actually nearer to open revolution against the system than at any time in my life, which is a loooong time, and the key issue is that unlike the miners strike and the poll tax thing, this is cross class, cross party and unifying the great unwashed in a way I’ve never seen before.

Given the fact it is in fact a constitutional crisis, I would say a date for a General Election should be set straight away, and it be made clear that the electorate expect any MP up for re-election to be prepared to answer publically for their expense claims to their local constituency. (thats all of them, not just their local party).

Should sort the wheat from the chaff.

Incidentally, while we’re on about the constitution how about an Abstain box on the ballot paper? I reckon if you had one currently there’d only be about 3 people get re-elected.