junior

Thanks Crofter, thats cheered me up.

From what I understand of the way Islam is preached by those in authority in the religion (that Islamic supremacy is the only way) it is incompatible with British society, or any other democracy for that matter. That doesn't mean that Muslims can't form a valuable part of Britain, and I think its a general religious issue, not one about asylum seekers.

If you just tell them you are coming to remove them do you honestly think they will be there when you come? In many cases yes that is exactly what I believe and even in other cases I do not see the justification for charging through the door in the early morning in a Sakchai style raid. I'm not sure that such a person exists JustMe, the failed asylum seeker that just waits patiently until their forced removal. The justification for removing people by force (which doesn't necessarily have to be done by specialist police in a "dawn raid") is that they have no right to be in the country, and they won't leave of their own accord. Back to the bigger picture, I think we should put a cap on the number of asylum seekers we accept. Looking at the world just now it is hard to imagine a time when there won't be a vast number of people who desperately need help. We can't help them all and we shouldn't try, plain and simple, we don't have endless resources. And don't get me started on giving them TVs....

I'll confess that last one didn't quite get my booty shaking like the first. Check out this place for a huge selection of online mixes. There is all sorts, mostly from recent clubs or festivals in Holland, but some going back as far as 2000. Its in dutch so you'll need your wits about you when navigating.

As strawb says about celebrities magazines, a lot people buy them, so presumably they want to know about these people. So I would call it "news" but I wouldn't call it "entertainment". I don't think that anyone is getting any pleasure from seeing Britney in a state, but they want to know all the same. I don't really care about it myself, but if significant amounts of others do, then I suppose that is all the justification the BBC needs. I suppose they could put it on a different program and leave the news for something vaguely important.

Jag - 4, 3, 2, I wish I could say yes, but TBH no, 1 (never say never)

I can't find a thing I'm afraid. It was across the news within the last few months. It was probably associated with one or two clubs in particular, and was probably triggered by a particular incident. After a brief look I can find nothing on either. Like most of my "knowledge" it comes from unknown TV at an unknown time The line at the time was that the use of recreational and performance enhancing drugs are two entirely different problems. So while the clubs accepted some responsibility for dealing with (sacking) players caught using performance enhancing drugs, dealing with recreational drug use is an entirely different matter, and should be dealt with by people more qualified, e.g. counselors, rehab facilities. In other words "Its not our problem, we don't want to know".

On a similar note, English football clubs recently made steps towards distinguishing between performance enhancing drugs, and recreational drugs. They didn't want to kick people out for using recreational drugs. It seems that recreational drugs (and therefore breaking the law) are becoming more and more acceptable.

I think Rasmie got it right when he said It is more important how you view yourself, than how others view you. If you feel part of Shetland, then you are part of it. Although I'm not sure that anyone who didn't grow up in the islands can ever really get the accent.

That first one might well make it onto my mp3 player, praise indeed

Easy tiger, thats getting a bit hopeful isn't it? Maybe not. Lots of people stand for parliament because they believe that they can do something positive when they get there. And if anyone doubts that politicians have principles they are not prepared to compromise then consider the resignations from the governments front bench over Iraq. Would also like to mention that a good number of MPs gave up very well paid jobs to enter parliament. I was being a bit flippant, but I can't resist responding anyway(). I assume you are talking about Robin Cook, who took an extremely admirable stance over the war. But he took a slightly more selfish one when, a few years ago, he tried to turf me out of my student flat with new legislation limiting the amount of HMOs per building. Not a principled stance, rather one founded solely on the fact that he didn't like living near too many students. All a politician "needs" is the ability to win votes, it is that vote winning policy making which I think dominates politics today. Thats all I was getting at with my original comment.

Easy tiger, thats getting a bit hopeful isn't it?

The only one that will play games: Micro$ Windows eXtra Pish

I nearly complemented him on his honesty but I don't think he wanted it to come out. While I'm glad that politicians have moved on from the "I smoked but didn't inhale"/"I snorted but sneezed" lines (which seem to be spun to imply they were cool enough to be at parties where these things happen, whilst ensuring they don't have to comment on the potentially enjoyable effects) I can't help thinking that a spliff in a dorm at Eton is not exactly going to get him speaking the language of the shell-suited masses. Or any non-shell-suited cheeba-chuffing youngster for that matter. It won't change my opinion of him anymore than learning that he had a glass of wine with his tea last night. He is still a pompous torry twat that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.

Should it ever be used on me I can think of several ways of getting the thing to shut-up, including a rather personal one for the pin holder

I completely agree, it is not the drinking outside which is the problem, it's the often appalling behaviour that goes with it thats the problem. That behaviour is already illegal, so we don't need new laws.

That's the same with anyone. You can't guarantee that after ten years of school someone will not come out like Jade. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't educate people. As I said, there are no guarantees. I am not saying don't educate people, I am saying spend the money on those that deserve it. The same potential benefits exists whether the money is spent on criminals or non-criminals. The question is, who deserves it the most? I'll confess that you've lost me a bit here, you seem to be siding with prisoners over children There is a finite amount of money available, IMO whilst there are good, honest people in this country living in poverty, they deserve that money more than prisoners.

And when money is spent on someone outside the prison system, that person is not the only one to benefit either. Give someone a better quality of life or a better education and they are more likely to get into employment and into the economy, and less likely to commit crime, that is true regardless of whether that someone is in a prison or not.

You can't guarantee that money spent on anyone will have the desired affect, be that education, reformation or whatever. So potential savings of £30k+ is attractive, but the key word is "potential". In the end, who deserves the money more, those who have committed crimes worthy of imprisonment, or those who haven't?

Any return on money that you spend depends on exactly how you spend it. I wouldn't assume that money spent educating criminals will return more than money spent educating non-criminals.

I called it activity. This can be a range of things from doing physical activity to mental activity. My point was that if it costs a single penny, I'd rather see the money spent on people who have not committed a crime.

Something to relieve the boredom, call it "stimulation" if you want

Firstly, and most importantly, I don't believe in human rights. We are mere parasites on this planet and for every second we spend here we should feel extremely lucky. If everyone thought like that their would be less crime in the first place. Civil liberties are another matter. I don't think that prisons should deliberately be made hell any more than I think they should be made easier by the supply of playstations etc. I am equally uneasy with the arguments made from either extreme of the debate here. For example: IMHO humiliation as a punishment has no place in civilised society. And in terms of other inflicted deliberate - and presumably physical - suffering: I can't help thinking that to enjoy watching another person suffer in this way is a little sick. And I pray for the world that you can convince the Muslim community about Sharia law being optional On the other hand: My heart bleeds. Not through sympathy, but because the guy in the next cell has just stabbed me with a screw driver! I think I've made my point. Are you really saying that it is the taxpayers fault that a prisoner ends up taking hard drugs because no entertainment was supplied Where's my playstation for being a good citizen? Where's my playstation for being bored? As far as I'm concerned, as long as there is a single good citizen in this country living in poverty, nothing more than food and shelter should be supplied to prisoners. Anything else would be (and is) and injustice.

8O My deepest sympathies! My bike is about ten times that in cc and insures for a quarter of the price. Out of interest, ahem, not to put salt in the wound, but from my experience the offer of increased voluntary excess has brung my fully comp to within a few quid of 'Third party only'. Or buy yerself a great big chain. You could spend £100 but it'll last for years and be virtually unbreakable to anyone but the most professional of thieves.

The only difference between Mr Hodge and Mr Nike in this respect is that Mr Hodge does not attempt to justify an extra £50 on the price with a fancy label. To suggest that the sale of cut price goods in this country is more responsible for slave labour rates abroad than the sale of expensive goods, is unfair.