³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

...and if we do it this way we will save a 100,000 lives ... what they will never die!? Cure one disease and they go and die of something else, how inconsiderate and how dumb for the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to continuously report stories that begin 'this new drug will save 10,00 lives a year in Britain' ... no it wont!, they will die of another cancer / disease or heart attck.

Architects ... dont start me .... solar panels, wind turbines, insulation ... they should be compulsory on all new buildings, where practical. Just ask Hemingway about his Boscombe Seafront development, where's the solar Wayne?

BACK TO FRONT AND UPSIDE DOWN

At 71, a fair number of my functions are jaundiced by time. (I fend off prescription drugs, and their side-effects, using a range of vitamins and minerals, but the bloody EU is going to put a stop to my dangerous stupidity.) I don't put a lot of value on what is left; that is in keeping with Nature. Our minders recoil when a 14 year old, in prime condition, has a baby, but see no blasphemy when old, creaking kit is pressed into service as its 'ticking bio-clock'
finally gets heard by the owner. We live in a world that is obsessed with commercial (cerebral) goals. The cure for everything is school and trade. OH NO IT ISNT! For countless millennia we have been animals ruled by Nature's rhythms. No amount of applied clever-dickery can change this. If we really care about lives, we should think quality rather than quantity. Nature knows best.

from Platos Republic

...the tyrant starts off in a democracy as the peoples champion. At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets and distributing land to the people and his followers.

But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him?

Now he begins to grow unpopular. And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of those who oppose him. And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy and happy man, the tyrant is the enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no, until he has made a purgation of them of the State.

His supporters flock to him, of their own accord, if he pays them. these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.

As the opposite of a good statesman who builds up the good in his country the tyrant state has been purged of the good and the tyrant is compelled to dwell only with the many bad...

this edited description might be said to hold true today?

BRITAIN ZIMBABWE

Delusional leader - lies - killing.

I'm just watching this talk about architects, and the problems with one of the guests hearing what is going on in the studio.

In 2008 has there been no technological advances that mean these 'down the line' interviews can be conducted better than they currently are, with half the people on the other end struggling to hear the questions being put to them?

Wouldn't it be better for them just to have a TV next to the camera at the other end and have some ipod earphones plugged in to it?

Ref: "mantownhuman"

I agree with Mr Williams completely.

Common Purpose "graduates" in local and national government are the people he is up against and are behind the social control freakery that he is battling.

Excellent (4) bookhimdano but I would have appreciated a bookmark.

And of course we can't put Robert Mugabe on trial. He's revered throughout Africa whatever his subsequent failings proved to be.

Zimbabwe.
It seems as if all the world is having conferences about Mugwabe.
He only understands force.
Britain could pretend he is Ian Smith and send warships to blockade as they did in earlier times!
Oops! I forgot, he is an African dictator, not a democratically elected Prime Minister of Rhodesia. Silly me, to think the world will do anything except wring collective hands!

In my experience, waiting list targets are a cruel sham.

I was referred to a consultant and yes, I was seen within 18 weeks. Seen meant just 5 minutes, a few notes quickly taken and given forms for blood tests. Come back in 6 months for the results. I then saw a junior doctor who just gave me more blood tests and said come back in 6 months. At the third appointment I given a form for a scan as well. At my fourth appointment, 21 months after originally being referred, I saw the consultant for a second time and we discussed my condition, the scan results and, finally, treatment. The blood tests had showed that my illness had steadily become worse and was approaching critical. I suspect this was the only reason why I'd been given the scan and was seen by the consultant the second time. Of course this meant that the treatment had to be more severe and the outcome was less certain.

So although the the waiting list target was satisfied from a bureaucratic viewpoint, the consultant had too little time to properly examine and follow up all these patients. Yes, I was 'seen' in less than 18 weeks, but this didn't help me at all. I would have been much better served if I'd have had to wait longer, say 36 weeks, but have been examined properly by a consultant who hadn't had to waste his time satisfying counter–productive bureaucratic targets just to make the government look good.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

THE OLD WAITING LIST PLOY

Ref #10 above.
While Emperor Blair was prancing about practising his naked effrontery, I twice experienced the trick of the letter that says: 'this letter is to tell you WILL get an appointment but this is NOT notification of an appointment. Politics, as configured in this country, is deceitful from ballot box to one-man's war. De-mock-crass-y.
Were Newsnight not trapped inside the lie, fearful that should they stop playing games, the show will not go on, the Westminster charade could be challenged for the good.

firemensaction wrote:

"Mugwabe only understands force.
Britain could pretend he is Ian Smith and send warships to blockade as they did in earlier times! Oops! I forgot, he is an African dictator, not a democratically elected Prime Minister of Rhodesia. "

Calling Smith a 'democratically elected PM' is a joke. He was a better leader than Mugabe but thats not saying much. No-one can be considered democratically elected if only a few percent of the population can vote.

Personally I'd just drop a 1000lb bomb on Mugabes house and let the MDC sort out (or not) the country as best they can. At least we wouldn't be accused of stealing Zim's resources or be forced to pay for rebuilding the infastructure for decades as we seem to be doing in Iraq or Afghanistan.

#3 "If we really care about lives, we should think quality rather than quantity. Nature knows best."

so why do you object to the EU limiting the sale of mega-dose tablets of artificially synthisised vitamins? You can buy 1000mg tablets of Vit C which are the equivalent of eating 30 or 40 oranges at a time. That is anything but natural and our bodies haven't evolved to cope with that sort of intake.

A lot of those tablets are potentially dangerous- its very easy to kill yourself with Vitamin A or iron tablets and therefore their sale SHOULD be curtailed. Equally a few years back the British Journal of Cancer showed a strong link between bladder cancer and mega-dose vit C (its water soluble you pee out what you don't need- hence the bladder problems)

As you say 'Quality over quantity and nature knows best'. Eat a healthy diet of fresh fruit and veg and you have no need of artificial supplements.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

NATURE STILL KNOWS BEST

Apologies to Peter Sym. I am a self-indulgent, artificially maintained
drain on society who should remember not to mix philosophy with pragmatism.

SUPPLEMENTS: My GP (about to retire) when asked: 'how many people have you had to treat for ill effects of supplements' replied 'none'.

NATURE AND PROCREATION: self-evident; needs no support from me.

8. sorry i thought everyone knew the republic off by heart anyway. it is the famous book 8
or the part that deals with the 5 types of character [1 of justice and 4 deviant] in other translations.

e.g



hands up all those who want to live in 'challenging' architecture?

like the uk the nhs needs a written constitution to prevent successive politicians who do not understand what the good is from making it in their own image ie ignorant of what the good is.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OH THAT REPUBLIC

I only saw the film.

Architects seem more concerned to be different than relevant to our lives. The poignant thing is that the identical comment applies to politicians.

The one thing Brown must do is admit to himself he is a needy, bitter child. If he cannot accept this, he could start by asking himself: 'Why do I still bite my nails to oblivion?'

Jaded Jean: good to see you are serially in the sin bin. I am intuiting like mad.

Barrie (#19) I appear to have been trying to say something unwelcome, or at odds with House Rules? I'm not sure what, so I'll try again:

WHY DON'T WE.. PUT OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER?

Given that European states have below replacement level fertility (we don't appear to appreciate just how dire this is) and we're having to import the best that Africa and S. Asia can provide (at their expense surely?) might it not be a good idea for the Newsnight team to look more closely into why we're still so eager to pressure
struggling 'developing' countries such as Zimbabwe to what would prima facie appear to be self-destructive liberal-democratic politics?




Looking at our TFRs and official US and EU demographic projections, if you were
struggling to govern Zimbabwe in the best interests of all and had the choice of following a) a democratic-centralist (one-party statist) PRC model (a country which comprises the world's largest population, has the fastest growing economy and the highest mean IQ in the world) or b) the liberal-democratic West which from all accounts appears to be on its way to
demographic oblivion?

In this context, why are ZANU-PF's efforts to thwart the Western backed liberal
democratic MDC so hard to grasp? Didn't China do just this not long ago?

Does one see the USA or EU deploying their NGOs to put pressure on the PRC to hold 'free-elections'?

No. The PRC doesn't have to deploy NGOs in the West either, as we're busy doing that ourselves through our own policies so the PRC can sit back and just watch us self-destruct whilst welcoming developing nations as they turn to her for political guidance.

Why is probing the assumptions of those who answer 'yes', such a taboo given that all our evidence suggests the answer should be 'no'? If in doubt, follow the link and earlier ones to ETS and Leitch.