johnbradley

Hi all, I'm moving back to sheffield, from leeds, and may need a little help...ive got a place to move into for the moment but have 3 cats who are, by the way, well sound and trained, etc. They are also top individuals! Would anyone be able to look after them for 2 months maximum, while i get sorted? I'll pay up in advance for food/litter/looking after? It would be a real help, please let me know Thanks, John

not sure of situation yet - apologies!

Take aways. Faster, tastier, only a couple of quid more expensive. I sometimes feel the whole 'take your time to prepare and enjoy good cuisine' angle is basically a poncey way of showing off cooking skills, asserting a middle-class sophistication. It has a gentle aroma of smugness, peppered with a sprinkle of superiority...there may also be a drizzle of balsamic vinegar involved, but i couldn't be certain.

Right you all know its a top idea. John wins. p.s also, i'd ban them from drinking too. 2 - 0!

This is a contribution towards that end cost, not additional. You don't really get taxed on £70 week. It would benefit wider society greatly in terms of vacancies, across all industries, being filled. This will only have a positive economic effect. Sociologically, students will feel increasingly like they are integrated with, and not aside from society. There will be cheering in the street, whistling on the way to work, high-fives on the biscuit production line... Cant argue with that really p.s as it was for me as a student, i know a load already work and graft...this just ties up the idle / rich ones and gives em a boot up the backside, and has everyone contributing for themselves, and for society at the same time.

Well it isn't likely to be pounced upon by the government any time soon. Doubt if they pay too much attention to this little forum. Top idea tho, isn't it?

No. Unless you are made redundant, or sacked unlawfully, the student cannot continue at university. Simple.

No. (in response to jongo) The chances are that they will have have numerous part time jobs in the time they were at university. To move from one to the next is not really a big deal. If they were made redundant though, the scheme would be sympathetic to this, don't worry. £350 is sod all. But - pool it together, watch it accumulate over time, invest it wisely, the pot will become enormous!

I'm saying - plenty of students work part time, and obtain good degrees. This proves that study/work commitments CAN be balanced. Now if there was a small percentage of the earnings that was set aside, it could be used as a contribution against the fees, thus reducing the amount they would face after graduation. Its feasible to earn £70+, after tax, per week in term time, and double that in summer (which is what i had to do, quite a few years ago) so you could be looking at a contribution base of (roughly speaking) about £3,500 per year. 10% of that would be £350 minimum raised from every student in the country, There are 2.5 million students, ignoring post-grads and the like. That would raise £875 million every year. Stick it in a bank, and watch it generate interest, with each year's fund increasing by another £875 mill. Or, like a pension fund, allow certain speculative types to invest it and make it grow. Within a few years that fund will be a fair old amount, surely? This will achieve the following: Have an impact on student fees Redress the imbalance felt by working students vs 'silver spoon' students Endow students with a sense of reality / real world / etc / etc Thus bringing us all closer together in peace and love and harmony.

Question: Would it be of benefit to make students take on part time jobs? To even make it a condition of their continued education? Furthermore, to take a percentage of the earnings, set it aside and use it as a contribution towards fees? There are, even in these hard times, plenty of vacancies, and would surely redress the imbalance felt by students with a job, and wider society. Sounds like a goer to me...what do you think?

haha beat me to it!

The honest answer is - yes staff will open up files which test specific programs on the computer, to ensure that all is working well. This will mean opening pictures to test picture viewers, opening music files to test music players, and opening video files to test video. In doing so they may inadvertently come across content which is amusing / crap / dodgy but never, in my 5 year experience at a computer shop, has anyone deliberately copied anyone's personal information. p.s we never really came across anything dodgy either.

Well, you've gotta hand it to him

nice parking

No. Lager's crap.

er, ok...so you mean a 'UN resolution' was, and i quote a spoddy on-line dictionary's 1st entry: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretext "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse" that doesn't really make any factual sense whatsoever. There WAS NO UN RESOLUTION. And i stand corrected here: Forget pot and black. you mean the pretext is the reasoning behind the request for a resolution? um...In which case, you are aligning yourself with me, insofar as the link between OBL and 9/11 being a false one, used to justify an invasion... Nice one. There i was thinking we were on opposite sides...! You are a top bloke. Despite what the others say

ok my opinion? Conspiracies do and can exist. In fact, they have always existed, particularly in the context of the multi-layered geo-political aspirations of certain countries. The driving motivation underpinning them all is power, whether economic, social, or political. And its becoming increasingly difficult to delineate these. Maybe it is folly to do so. The world as we know it is not the world as they tell it. Clearly. Anyone brave enough to grapple with that concept deserves credit. The difficulty arises when, in an eagerness to understand the puzzle, one can easily be led down the wrong path. Equally, in an eagerness to hold on to a solid 'world view', one can be persuaded to argue the opposite, despite major and rather obvious anomolies.

p.s "Come on, a little attention to detail / facts is helpful here. A UN resolution was the pretext for war." er...pot and black, pal?

Wrong. The resolution was never granted. The UN Security Council NEVER authorised it. mad when you look into it: Check out this dude, doesn't seem too cranky..indeed, an extremely articulate lawyer, who has represented his views numerous times on the american box - http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html "...the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack"--that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan." Are you not even the merest bit interested now? Bush, having failed to get the ok from the UN, then went to congress to get an official 'declaration of war'. Guess what? No dice... "Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared." But then he pulls out the trump card, an 'imperfect declaration of war', which, being ambiguous in its terminology, actually renders it far more dangerous! Check this out: "he did get from Congress a War Powers Resolution authorization. This is what law professors call an imperfect declaration of war. It does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It authorizes the use of military force in specified, limited circumstances" And this, not the UN resolution, not the declaration of war, but a resolution from the US which allows specified, limited engagement. Now the genius part is this - define 'limited' or 'specified' in this context? Depending on that definition, you could use this to then hop over to Iraq, (job done) and check out any number of countries 'known to be habouring terrorists with 'links' to 9/11' (ongoing) That's got to stoke your interest now, Tony?

ok, i understand that, but that still sounds like a dodgy reason to go to war and i paraphrase, 'to smoke him out of his cave'... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623 On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” at least can you see that we have a very precarious case for sending in the big guns? We didn't go after the beardo because of the 1998 bombings...

You are dodging the question somewhat. Maybe its a little complicated for you so i'll break it down: 1. The Afghanistan invasion was justified on the basis of OBL being clearly linked to 9/11. The Taliban were supposedly helping him hide out there. yet 2. The FBI will not link him to 9/11 directly. Small detail. But should be of concern to any rational minded individual. Simple.

Fair point. But my question to you is this: If the FBI are not prepared to link Bin Laden to 9/11 yet, how come America and Britain were willing to base a whole invasion of a country on that very same link...? It all seems very odd to me. And there's the thing, if the evidence linking OBL to 9/11 wasn't strong enough for the FBI, then it means the following must be true: 1. The Governments had access to information that the FBI doesn't, and used that knowledge as justification. Not only that, but has kept this information from the FBI for nearly a decade. (Does this seem likely? Really?) 2. The Governments didn't have any strong evidence, but continued anyway, using Bin Laden/Al Quaeda as a 'bogeyman', expanding control across the middle east...ultimately serving the greater purpose of securing energy supplies in the age of 'peak oil'. 3. The FBI webmaster is a little sloppy and hasn't updated the page for a bit. Could it be any clearer?

so the investigations are continuing, and evidence is currently not strong enough to put on a website...but strong enough to use as a pretext to get stuck into afghanistan? C'mon, pal, looks fishy to me...!

p.s have a look at the FBI's most wanted list -you will find that Bin Laden is on there...but that there is no mention of 9/11. Why? 'lack of evidence'. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists Now if they had proof that this dude was in it up to his eyeballs, sending videos and tapes out claiming responsibility...don't you think they'd mention it on there?

i repeat - check out michael ruppert - an ex-lapd detective, who has written about and presented on the whole 'roadmap' of american neo-imperialism, and strategies of persuing the dwindling global energy supplies. 9/11 is just one part of it. He just investigated it all like a detective would. Top bloke.