NJS

I don't think its inherently more "sad" than bird watching or indeed even football - if it doesn't interest you then fair enough. My initial interest came out of some stories I heard around the time of my Mam's death. Because I was an "afterthought" baby (my Mam was 40 when she had me) I always seemed to be unaware of some of the juicier stories from the family's past as I only knew one grandparent and also as my cousins/uncles/aunts seemed to be a generation older than they should have been. I only got back to the 1850s before I realised going any further requires a lot of time and effort.

I'm not sure of the breakdown percentage wise but NR did get criticised for having a lot of >100% mortgages in the UK. The rest of the UK banking sector was fucked by the securities based on the US bad mortgages rather than mortgages they granted themselves.

If we do get promoted this year and the twat gets his extra money in a sale then I'll bet it will be August before it happens and the new owners will have no time to get a manager or build a squad. We're fucked basically.

Who is saying it was like? Northern Rock did get into bother in a similar way to theYank Mortgage banks to be fair.

It won't affect the London branch that much (not saying that makes it alright) and its likely it will all be natural wastage as Germans don't like enforced job cuts but I do get your point - I made the point at the announcement meeting that capitalist always see job cuts as "good" cost cutting. If (and I know you could be naive and recognise the size of the word) the restructuring is stuck to, it certainly does on paper suggest less risk (withdrawing from dodgy product sectors etc).

The Fry worshipping has gone a bit over the top since he started doing QI. I think most people don't realise that he's reading an autocue. I'm sure he is very intelligent and witty and all that but it's getting a bit ridiculous now. I used to work with a lad who went to see a couple of QIs being filmed and he reckoned there was good and bad from Fry - some of the stuff off camera showed he was as intelligent and witty as people like to think but he also pulled a couple of complete strops which made him look like an arsehole.

I think a few articles recently have played the "they're just going back to what they did previously" outrage card which may not be true. The bank I work for has opted for a 6bn Euro recapitilisation package from its shareholders but EU approval for that has meant a restructuring plan which redefines a focus on customers more and a more cautious approach to risk in general (as well as 25% staff cuts over 4 years). Maybe big players like GS have just continued as if nothing has happened but I don't think thats universal.

I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides).

I always said that Hall/Shepherd just saw the fans as wallets to be emptied but Ashley's open contempt goes beyond even that.

They are letting the Pope in next year so I don't see the grounds for banning this bloke. I suppose they used the fear of violence to avoid free speech issues which they wouldn't have been able to use for the Pope but I find some of the views of both of them equally offensive - and would let them both in to encourage debate (minus the reverence to the latter).

I usually think of "cunt" being a description of somebody nasty which is why it probably doesn't apply in either case. Stevie's occasional nastiness (a lot of which I agree with) would suggest more cunt potential but I'd say KD was more leaning towards a boring twat if anything - probably a lesser crime. Oops - that should be in the "cunt" thread obviously.

I dabbled a bit last year and probably the most interesting thing I found was that my grandparents weddings on both sides were less than 9 months before the birth of my Mam and my Dad's oldest brother.

I honestly don't think finding the jokes amusing and finding the Mail article to be despicable at the same time is in any way hypocritical - I just consider both reactions to be sides of the same human coin.

Read a link to that on The Guardian site - I'm suprised it wasn't the Phillips whore though.

So how does the fucker explain how utterly shite he was in the actual World Cup?

Don't get on his back, he's won a peace prize and is inspiring people... http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-natio...90803-e5z1.html Don't get me wrong - I like the bloke - but just like Michael Moore you have to read/watch his stuff with both eyes open.

Fucking hell, Pilger oversimplified a few things and wrapped it up in emotive language - well I never.

They've said if the treaty hasn't been signed then they may - it's a trick as it will be signed by then. The Czech bloke might be within his rights but my reading was that he was being an arse because he likes being the centre of attention rather than out of great principle.

Kamikaze pilots who believed their emperor was divine I know its a bit easy to correlate suicide bombing and Islam but I do think its fair - of course others driven by occupation have done the same - the Vietnamese monk comes to mind - but I think having people who are indoctrinated into a belief in an afterlife are easier to radicalise for political causes than those not. Ireland springs to mind again as another example where things are spiced up by that extra factor - achieved a lot easier with separate estates/schools to keep "them and us" apart. Getting back to Dawkins I think his thrust is that automatic "over" respect of beliefs can lead to problems. I think you should be able to say to people "isn't hating him because ....." is a bit daft (with some kind of politeness) and to do that you have to be able to say generally things like "you can't teach kids the world is 6000 years old" - I see allowing backsliding over curriculum and other concessions as barriers to having the confidence to say "we respect your right to be idiots but don't cause problems because of it".

Fair enough there may be "a bit of politics" in there but as both I and Renton have said, other political terrorists don't see suicide bombing as a valid option - I think that takes an extra ingredient.

Not wholly my point - I'm not an "all wars are religious" zealot as some are - they are usually about land, resources, history, politics etc I'm just saying that religion can be a very dodgy factor in them. Other thing can sometimes be addressed but if you're left with we're "x" and they're "y" you haven't got much to go on. A lot of the "old" reasons for wars are becoming redundant as humans generally mix and migrate fairly easily and the world to some extent is becoming less local so I'd just like to see any remaining factors diminish as well.

But they were just the trigger men. Those pulling their strings are very much embittered by injustice, be it real or invented. I don't believe you could persuade an atheist to kill himself in the name of X, but there are some very legitimate political grievances governing the strikes against western targets. Do you honestly think that Atta or Bin Laden really cared/care about the Palestinians? You can argue about the July 7th bombers from a perceived grievance pov (but only then because of religious brotherhood) but honestly think for many Muslims (and as I said extreme US Christians) it is a religious conflict. I would also say that suicide bombing has only become "fashionable" in conflicts where that extra spice I referred to is present. You could argue for example that the ANC had a real grievance but as far as I know they didn't use suicide bombing.

The September 11th bombers weren't Palestinians or from any other country affected by any perceived notion of American foreign policy so what does that leave? It leaves people who genuinely believed that their cause was holy. I would also say that despite background political strings, both Blair and Bush were "influenced" by their faiths - that also applies to many, many Americans. Religions are another layer to gang warfare on a large scale but the problem is that for far too many people they are a base, irrational layer that adds a nasty spice to political grievances. I don't think for one minute that its removal would end conflict instantly but it would help take the edge of things if people didn't classify themselves in this way. Its not just the middle east btw - conflicts in Europe in the last 30 or 40 years show that we are not immune and dismissing these as just "political" is naive imo.

You honestly don't see religion as a problem internationally? I presume you don't operate from a "doesn't affect me so I don't care" pov so I would find not seeing it as a problem to be strange tbh.

There are a few issues for Faith schools for me: Firstly I'd say it imposes the parent's views on the kid - I know that happens generally but I think one thing Dawkins has fundamentally right is that describing kids as "whatever" really grates on me. We impose ages of consent/legality for things like voting and sex but seem okay to just define kids by their parents gangs. Secondly I find them divisive - no matter how much they deny it, having gone to a catholic school I know theres an attitude of "we are right, the rest of you are damned" which goes beyond simple school pride/loyalty and the attitudes can pervade throughout life. Thirdly I find the dishonesty of parents pretending to find God to get into schools to be nuaseating - faith schools get better results beacuse they select (as studies have shown) not because of innately better work ethics as argued. Finally I think despite a set curriculum its easy for faith schools to teach bollocks - including in science - and as someone who cares about knowledge I find that deeply wrong. Overall I think France and even the US in principle have it right - I think state schools at least should be secular and religion should be pushed into the private sphere as much as possible - where I do believe honestly in the right for anyone to believe any bollocks they like.