Bob Arctor

No, around two weeks. I have known them backdate a JSA claim as far as three months, providing you can convince them you have been actively looking for work, but giving the reason for not claiming as "it's not for me" is unlikely to help. I think you should claim - JSA is a form of insurance, no-one is too proud to claim on their car or life insurance.

Surely it should be "All KFC are <removed>"

That makes sense to me. I wonder if everyone who supports the idea of a sliding scale of loan repayments based on income level realises how similar that is to income tax. It's a short hop from there to just funding it through income tax. Do we really think it's only graduates who benefit from their education? I think we all benefit from people in our society being better educated, so why not just fund it through income tax and remove the incentive to pile 'em high and churn them through (I'm looking at you, Hallam) and incentivise the provision of high quality learning instead.

Thank you

Quite weird how the party of the free market created a market and are now expressing surprise that it behaves like other markets, i.e. they charge as much as they can and the people at the top pay themselves more than they are worth.

Yes, but not to waste on you I'm afraid. It's like giving a donkey strawberries.

Yeah, but bills, libel, stuff

Such a weak responose from you. You really are doing a great job of showing who is the biggest idiot in this thread. It's not a 'sideshow', because it highlights the moral hazard at the centre of the issue, which is that if the Labour MPs insanely paid the hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs for their successful libel action, probably bankruping themselves in the process, it would provide no deterrent to members of political parties libelling each other. Libelling is a form of proven lying, remember? So it would incentise lying among politicians - we have more than enough of that already. That's why you daren't answer the question. I'll answer yours though, because I'm the lesser idiot: Yes, I think it would be good for the democratic process. Politicians and their parties should take responsibility for their actions and those actions should have consequences. The more egregious the action, the more severe the consequence should be. This is an important principle not just in politics but in life in general, which has already been eroded by the banks largely getting away with their crashing of the economy in 2008. If UKIP were to be given exemption from it then it sends entirely the wrong message to everyone in Britain. The fact that UKIP get significantly more media coverage than the Green Party despite getting a similar number of votes suggests there are greater issues with the democratic process that you could be turning your attention to.

Who should pay the legal costs?

As altus asked: who should pay the legal costs?

It's a real eyesore and I can't see anyone ever moving into it. Is it scheduled to come down or will it just rot there?

And yet it's all somehow Labour's fault

And do we think the Republicans have been putting plenty of money into mental health services to reduce the overall level of risk from the small numbers of people who might do something like this?

They always come out with "Now is not the time to talk about gun control" in the immediate aftermath, but funnily enough they never come back and say "ok, now is the time"

Surely he deserves our respect and congratulations rather than criminal charges?

They are collectively mad. What do we do with them apart from keep them as contained as possible in North America?

That sounds pretty hair raising. Whoever is in that car is very much wanted by the sounds of it

I've heard about 20+ emergency vehicles heading city bound down Burngreave Road in about the last 5-10 minutes and now the copper chopper is out. I don't like the sound of that.

There might have been some before, that is the first one I'm aware of.

Three months, tops.

How long do you think they stuck to fighting radical islam for?

Very early on (just 3 months after they formed in fact) they targeted a mosque in Harrow with protests, when it had no known links at all to radical Islam. It was at that point that I concluded that they just hated Muslims, and what I have seen since hasn't persuaded me to change my mind.

It does have the verb-free ring of Blairism about it doesn't it?

Participate in one of your threads where you state your opinion then defend it to the hilt regardless of any valid points anyone else might make, while posing as open-minded? Got other stuff to do, innit.

Did you have all this stuff stored up, straining to get out like a dog wanting walkies, until you discovered Sheffield Forum? Or have you been jabbering away since the minute you were born?