Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 06 Jul 2015 22:19:09 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at SirStarryKnight I realise that this is a deeply unfashionable suggestion to make, but isn't it time that gas, electricity and water were re-nationalised? These are the most basic essentials of life and, without taking any party political stance, I believe sincerely that the government of the day should provide these utilities to its citizens at a price that is (a)affordable and (b)universal .. the same for all consumers. I accept that this measure would cost a vast amount of money and would need to be heavily subsidised - I am not suggesting that these essentials should be provided to consumers free of charge, but I do feel that the profit motive inherent in a privatised market results inevitably in higher costs and a lower standard of living for a huge number of people. The very poorest, of course, receive help in the form of benefits, but the real burden is carried by people who are slightly over the financial borderline and thus have to manage from within their own meagre resources. It is no secret that privatisation, in its numerous manifestations, is about making a profit. That profit comes out of the pockets of consumers.Where would the government find the money to take care of its citizens in this way? Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cancelling vastly expensive projects projects such as the Trident replacement, would be a great start. Am I alone in holding these views? Fri 18 Sep 2009 17:45:12 GMT+1 Fearless Fred Has the man no feelings?!?!? :-p Thu 20 Aug 2009 08:49:36 GMT+1 Big Sister Eloise: Just as I suspected .... ;o) Thu 20 Aug 2009 08:47:55 GMT+1 eloise He's been very cruel. Quad lattes were wafted. Thu 20 Aug 2009 08:35:52 GMT+1 Big Sister Eloise: They say, about giving up smoking, that it's best to keep away from other smokers. How does this apply to your laudable attempt to give up caffeine when you have, from what we hear, the CaffeineMeister himself working alongside you? ;o) Thu 20 Aug 2009 07:59:04 GMT+1 eloise Thanks for all the comments. It seems quiet on the blog, perhaps it's the hot weather, which sadly doesn't touch us in air-conditioned White City. I confess to being a bit late to catch up on the rugby story but am now gripped, so expect more updates next week. This is day 7 caffeine free and I think the clouds are beginning to lift.. just as well, as we have Lockerbie, Afghan elections, A Levels, oh and the cricket to contend with today! Eloise Thu 20 Aug 2009 06:38:53 GMT+1 jonnie Lovely programme - and ppreciated the trail for the arcive hour Wed 19 Aug 2009 23:37:15 GMT+1 U14094596 This post has been Removed Wed 19 Aug 2009 18:57:41 GMT+1 Gillianian newlach (2) I totally agree - this has to be an ''either/or'' situation - you either get off drugs, or you lose your child (at least til your lifestyle improves)SSC (4) The same thought occurred to me - I'm surprised he didn't add the word ''modest'' to his own description!Ffred(8) A sad day indeed.... so much for the the saying I'm fond of quoting about gentlemen playing a thug's game!It was interesting to hear how the RSC plays came about. I wish them every success.All in all, a very good mix of items, I thought. Wed 19 Aug 2009 18:50:42 GMT+1 Gnome Chomsky Newlach, Professor McKegney and the other commentator on the show have done much to clarify the situation of drug-using parents for all of us inexperienced child protection social workers, for which they should be thanked.If I may paraphrase, I believe the straightforward guidelines we have been crying out for are: Anybody who is a parent and uses drugs, but only certain types, and only in association with chaotic lifestyles, should lose their children to the care system as soon as their drug use is suspected but only after they have had a chance to stop their drug use, during which the children are at risk (I note Brandon Muir's killer moved into his mother's home only three weeks before Brandon's death). I am sure that the marketplace will provide homes for those estimated 200,000 children living with drug-using parents, and that the electorate will vote overwhelmingly in favour of the increased public cost liability.Actually, I'm beginning to wonder whether those rigid, tightly-defined guidelines are any better than the muddle we already have. Wed 19 Aug 2009 18:49:51 GMT+1 Fearless Fred Well, one of the bits I listened to most closely tonight was the Rugby piece. I should declare an interest up front on this; I am a Harlequins supporter, and was actually at the game (although I was on the other side of the pitch, so didn't see the incident properly). I have to say that I hate the fact that the club I support have brought the game into disrepute. Whilst most people around the game are aware of the 'gamesmanship' that goes on re blood substitutions, uncontested scrums, etc., the way the people involved tried to influence the outcome of the game has left a sour taste in the mouths (pun not intended) of the fans. Rugby has always held itself above certain other team games played on roughly equivalent size pitches with a spherical ball (generally called Girlyball by rugby fans!) as regards ethics, respect for authority, etc. Sadly, the 'Quins have exposed that rugby is just as likely to suffer the ignomanies of cheating. I hope Mark (who I have met and shared a drink with by chance last season) can get the club back to being a great, well-respected club. Wed 19 Aug 2009 18:16:28 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert Ooops.. Sorrrry.. trigger finger. And the Sons of Maxwell meet Canadian Idol... Wed 19 Aug 2009 17:53:17 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert Not so much for PM, but this event may capture the imagination of BH. 'Cojones Cookoff' eh ? The mind truly boggles... Wed 19 Aug 2009 17:52:14 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Oops, forgot my closing ). That would have bothered me all night... Wed 19 Aug 2009 17:03:17 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat It was very disconcerting to hear Mr Sussman call *himself* a philanthropist. Am I being very British in thinking that's not on, or was he just flagging up publicly that he got the job because of his contributions. (Though the report did a good job emphasising that that wasn't what had happened. Wed 19 Aug 2009 17:02:08 GMT+1 newlach One would have thought that two law graduates would know better! If these criminals are allowed to pursue a career in law I think their past will come back to haunt them. There is always a disgruntled rival somewhere. Wed 19 Aug 2009 16:57:12 GMT+1 newlach Professor Mckegney is correct. Children must be removed from their drug addict parents in circumstances where the parents' chaotic lifestyles could put them at risk of serious harm. A social worker who visits drug addict parents will most likely be lied to and may not realize the truth of the situation. Wed 19 Aug 2009 16:40:37 GMT+1 David_McNickle Now that's nice. Very tasteful. Why can't that DMcN do Glass Boxes like that? Wed 19 Aug 2009 15:23:56 GMT+1