Kingfisher

Fair point well made Snowy. I am fully aware the real problem is government and Atos are carrying out their bidding, I wasn't diverting attention away from that fact - if it looked that way. To solve the problem it has to be tackled at the root because there will be many more vile companies willing to carry out this vile governments policies.

That's the way I see it too. Every bit as bad as the government. They're complicit and they're profiteering out of misery.

In stark contrast to all the feel good factor bullshit about the economy coming out of the BBC propaganda machine recently back in the real world things aren't looking so rosy for the government. The filthy dirty scumbags that run atos who've spent the last few years making huge profits out of the misery of disabled people want out of their contract early. What their motives are at this stage I don't know, they're apparently fed up of being perceived as the bad guys. A bit late in the day to worry about that. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4847585?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite

Some more 'something for nothing' Tory millionaires scrounging off the state. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richest-mp-britain-slams-welfare-3178089 These hypocrite bastards are lecturing the poorest about scrounging whilst leaching the system for all they can get. They're robbing you, your money is going to them. His office 'refused to comment'. He doesn't even think he should explain himself... Remember that come May 2015.

Mark Steel's take on the divorce isn't too far from mine. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/now-even-david-bowies-ganging-up-on-the-scots-is-this-how-to-stop-independence-9142266.html

Im more of a dry stone wall man myself.

I don't think it's as hopeless as you make out. I agree, for the green movement to work business has to take a leading role, but fortunately there are some very sound reasons why going green makes business sense. But it's longer term, rather than short term - so government need to show leadership and encourage the economy to go the green route. But first we have to elect a government, we're a rudderless ship at the moment. The current lot are just feathering their nests and handing as much of our assets to their pals as they can before next year. I honestly don't think winning another election is of much concern to these millionaires. With the media brainwash, I just don't think the public are quite aware of this.

What you really need is a rusty mk3 golf. I happen to know of one that has just come on the market.

Just bought a mercedes 190e 1990, 90k on the clock two previous owners. The original owner kept it in a garage, rarely drove it and washed it once a week. He passed away and it was in his widows possession for 4 years and never moved until she went into an old people's home. Now it's mine - £350. It looks showroom new.

All as bad as each other, Blair, Brown, Cameron. All on the Murdoch payroll. Three cheeks of the same arse.

Breaking news! An earthquake has hit the south west! People on the scene said it was terrifying - like a large truck going up the road.

Indeed, I clicked on the 'Murdoch Scum' thread expecting to read about [insert interesting subject here]...Think it's a hacked account, Jon.I read that this morning and only just got it.

The promise of a brighter economic future? Fossil prices fuel are going up, renewables coming down.

What I don't get is the idea that acting now to reduce carbon emissions is the expensive option. The price of fossil fuels is only going one way, and guess which way that is...completely the opposite way of renewables. Keeping the status quo is all about short term profit, and is sending us down down deeper and down.

I don't think the met office are a government patsy, whether privatisation would diminish their impartiality on climate change is a question open to debate. But it would be incredibly stupid to privatise such an important public tool IMO.

An interesting piece on the latest unemployment figures. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-the-reality-behind-the-job-stats-9139240.html?utm_content=bufferfe0b6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer It's certainly, anecdotally what I've seen happening. Going self employed and getting working tax credits is better than signing on - even though the work isn't there. I know many who are in this position. Hardly what I'd call part of a solid recovery. It seems it's a favoured form of employment for many companies too.

So the Tory council cuts are now affecting rural bus services. So if you live in one of these rural parts of Wales and can't afford a car to get to your job or the job centre, or are too disabled to drive there, or you're too old to drive to the local supermarket you're fooked. I suppose it's only continuing what the Tories started in the 1960's when they decimated the rural rail network. The Tory mantra, if it doesn't make a profit it has no value. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26262972

No she's been criticised for saying something utterly non scientificI'm in the Peterms camp on this one I'm afraid. When looking at all of what she has to say in context I don't think her comments are in conflict with the balance of evidence. Edit - to add, I don't think she said this single event proves climate change, as you originally stated she said. If I said that (without checking) its not what I meant, what I meant to say was she said the single event was caused by climate change (in her words "in all likelihood"), she utterly cannot and should not say that, it is unscientific as it is impossible to prove either way.Well, that's certainly what you intimated she said. Now I could highlight that and ignore everything else you've subsequently said in order to add context and clarity to your thoughts but that would be too ironic for VT. Seriously, I think in the context of the whole interview she got the balance just right, in line with the balance of evidence.

No she's been criticised for saying something utterly non scientificI'm in the Peterms camp on this one I'm afraid. When looking at all of what she has to say in context I don't think her comments are in conflict with the balance of evidence. Edit - to add, I don't think she said this single event proves climate change, as you originally stated she said.

So we've had a page or two of people having a go at a scientist for saying something she didn't actually say? That's the level of debate is it?

nobody is disputing that now 'prove' it's caused by us burning fossil fuels and this directly caused the flooding of Datchet last weekend The overwhelming evidence has convinced the vast majority of the scientific community that on balance of probability, we shouldn't be taking a gamble by backing the other horse. But maybe they're all just patsy's in the pocket of government. As for this lady's comments re: the floods, I didn't hear the interview so cannot comment. Is it available online?

Climate change is a fact.

The general ignorance of science and the inability of some to understand simple statements when it comes to climate change is disturbing. Surely this has to be a case of denial now the evidence has become so compelling.

If Scotland do vote for independence the potential for revolution gets stronger imoI see it as a kind of a revolution in Scotland. If the Scottish people vote to sever the ties I can't think of a bigger vote of no confidence in our political system. It will reflect completely disenfranchised population saying enough is enough. It might turn out well for them, it might not, but they're willing to take the jump because they're fed up with the status quo. Sorry but theres no way its a revolution of any kind, its nationalism, it really wouldn't matter who was in power in the UK or if the whole system changed, the 25% of the Scots that genuinely hate the English and are blinded to all reason would still be banging the same drum.I don't see it that way. I don't think it's a Scotland England thing at all. I think it's a demonstration of how Westminster politics has failed people of a particular geographical region, who unlike people in the many other deprived areas, have the mechanisms to enable change. The place was a Tory stronghold until its industry was decimated, later it's oil privatised. The argument that this region can't sustain itself is no argument against independence, it's quite the opposite to the poor folk who live there and have seen years of decline. Or maybe you're right, maybe it's about foaming nationalists who hate England...

If Scotland do vote for independence the potential for revolution gets stronger imoI see it as a kind of a revolution in Scotland. If the Scottish people vote to sever the ties I can't think of a bigger vote of no confidence in our political system. It will reflect completely disenfranchised population saying enough is enough. It might turn out well for them, it might not, but they're willing to take the jump because they're fed up with the status quo.