Orphee

Some of Victorian philanthropy was done out of principle, some was for the sake of profit. A healthy workforce means better income. But you can only solve certain problems after they break over your head. In the case of the massive ecological issues such as man made global warming, it's better to be preventative. The idea that scaremongering is going on seems based on the idea that scientists like the idea of a global catastrophe, that they can somehow benefit from it, but that's not true. Their predictions are based on decades of detailed research, testing their own ideas to destruction, rather than picking only the facts that suit partisan views, like the dilletantes such as Lord Monckton or James Delingpole.

I can't remember the last time I even thought about trusting a bus timetable.

I think the thread title is a dead giveaway, don't you? As well as smiley faces indicating I'm insane, for that matter.

You said it darling, sadly I won't be there.

I was basing my remarks on the original post, about people handing out flyers. I'm not claiming anyone marched, the one time I mentioned it in a post was a simple mistake. I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm making a suggestion - why not debate the issue instead of nit-picking posts and slagging off anyone who dares to differ from the right wing. I've yet to see a good answer from anyone.

I'll have downloaded the Sex Pistols 'God Save the Queen' and be hoping it made it to number one. Other than that I'll try to stay away from the media and royalist venues as much as possible. The hype for the royal family has being going on for centuries. Nothing against the lady personally, but I just don't see why we should celebrate how long she and her family have been living off the taxpayer just because quite by accident they were born into or married into a particular family. They're independently rich and would still attract tourists even if we didn't keep them in the lifestyle to which they're so accustomed.

Why bother to talk about it if you're not even going to engage with the issue? Just the usual character assassination to devalue someone else's point of view. Try putting forward some actual arguments for once.

Who are you asking?

Where is it written that anyone who is a socialist isn't allowed to hold views on sexual equality, or if they do, that they must be ignored because of their party politics? On what grounds do you then say it was 'disguised'? SWP people marched because sexism is an issue they care about, get used to it. Nobody, but nobody is an 'equivalent to the BNP' except the BNP.

Green issues are 'the basics'.

It makes me laugh that people think 'green issues' are just some trivial side issue that can be thrown out when things get tough. The 'environment' is the place where you are right now, it's wherever you are while you're alive. Ignoring the environment is the equivalent of sh*tting on your own doorstep. There isn't an automatic trade off between being sustainable or having jobs. That's the old way of thinking that caused all the environmental damage in the first place. The fact remains, the Earth as a whole has limited resources, while the human race continues to grow and consume those resources faster and faster. Something's got to give, but if it's the environment, then life will get ugly rather quickly. So what's so silly about recycling and being more efficient?

He's only being suggested because people know him from a radio show. There's probably dozens of better candidates, but they don't get heard giving their opinions over the airwaves. What I mean is that candidates are being suggested based not on what they could do, but media profile.

....and therefore the issue of sexism can be safely ignored, yes?

Oh no! SOCIALISTS! Anything but that! Bring me my pitchfork and my torch of fire!

Rubbish, all that's happening is the psychological shock felt by men when the playing field starts to level up after centuries of being slanted in their favour.