mercuryg

That's not always the case, Mr Darn; clearly you're not self employed. I don't mind paying charges for being over my limits, but resent paying £30 quid plus for a few pennies. Banks have been ripping people off for far too long and look what happened to them - they fell like dominoes because of their inherent greed.

What free bank accounts? The whole point of this prolonged argument has been that, in fact, no bank account is free and, as it is, charges levied are extortionate. Does it cost £30 to send a letter? They didn't pay me that when I billed them for one. personally, I would rather have an account with a fee and a lesser rate of charges for going 50p overdrawn than one that charges me a bloody fortune for the privelege. Here's hopign the OFT screws them

Like those supercar makers, who all use an engine based on one first developed in the 1880's?? No they don't.

Do you need telling that it hasn'got it's body on yet? Or are you genuinely joking>?

Well, from what I heard yesterday the news is that part of the new fangled market place is to be turned into an ice rink, as they do in a couple of places in newcastle, for a limited time before Xmas. get your skates out!

Chamone, yare absolutely right in agreeing with Vic's views regarding the political correctness that affects society these days, but that does not mean we can ignore the basic responsibility that each of us has. Give the kids a place to go and the rogue element - those that Jester is on about - would still act as they do, because that's them, that's how they are. When I was a kid there were those we avoided, those who smashed up phone boxes and the like; they didn't do it because they had 'nothing to do' or 'nowhere to go', they did it because they were badly behaved kids. Someone, somewhere, has to take responsibility for that, aned it's not the 'authorities' by giving them a building of their own to smash up, it's the parents. Vic alludes to the removal of power from teachers and police; that's right, but parents still have a responsibility, and an ability, to bring up their kids correctly. Many of my friends have beautifully behaved children of all ages, well brought up and extremely pleasant, and they are not the minority but the majority. Most kids are like that. That's why these 'theories' don't stack up.

What on eart do you mean 'it's not surprising' that they've turned to what is, essentially, disgracefully bad behaviour? It should be very, very surprising, and it shouldn't be happening! What a lackadaisical attitude it is that you consider this to be the fault entirely of others, and not the kids themselves! No, I'm saying that there IS something for them to do! My mates used to come round to my house and play on Scalextric or whatever, or i'd go to there's and do something else. Why has it suddenly come to be an excuse that kids are behaving badly because they haven't got 'somewhere to go'? We didn't have a sports centre, a youth club, a leisure centre or whatever, we made our own fun. the difference was, it wasn;t at someone else's expense! I agree with you regards the do gooders, but again you're shirking the responsibility of both the kids and the parents. Look, these kids who bang on Jester's door and kick his garage in, are they doing it because they have 'nothing else to do'? No, are they !*!@# , they are doing it because a) they choose to, they think its fun and c) they get away with it. Do they go home and tell their parents 'hey dad, mum, I kicked seven shades out of this guys garage door tonight, it was great fun!'? No, they don't, and the vast majority of those parents haven't got a bloody clue that they are doing anything fo the sort. What sort of parent lets (according to Jester) a nine year old kid hang out on the street like that? Has that crossed your mind? What has that to do with 'do gooders' and the like? These kids aren't forced to kick in garages and bang on doors, and then entice the victims with abuse, they CHOOSE to do it. I will say one thing - those that indulge in this sort of behaviour are very much in the minority; this is yet another confirmation of the fact that the reasons you give (and it's not you, there are others) are not justifiable; if it was because they had 'nothing to do' and 'nowhere to go' they would all be at it. They're not, so tell me, where are the rest, the majority?

It always riles me greatly when I read this excuse, time and time again, as a reason for the bad behaviour of idiots. I was brought up in a town where there was absolutely nothing to do when we were young bar ride our bikes and gather with mates for a natter. Did we indulge in the behaviour described by Jester? No, we didn't, because had we done so the local bobby would have found us, given us a bloody great clip around the ear and deliver us to our parents with a full explanation. I'll lay odds that the majority of these kids have a playstation, a computer, whatever, that can give them far more in terms of something 'to do' than anything I had in my youth. It's not an excuse at all. I agree with the bit about the 'do gooders' but maybe in a different way; it's largely the lax attitude of parents who are not held responsible for the beahaviour of their kids. I disagree; call in those favours and give the little !*!@# a fright. We all know it wasn;t Jester, after all.... A story; a friend of mine had been suffering a great deal of torment from someone, no details given here for obvious reasons, and did just this - installed CCTV at home. Said tormentor was caught several times causing bother, vandalism, damage outside of home. Did it help? No, it didn't, because there is still teh need for a positive identification, something not always possible on CCTV, especially in the dark. Don't pay the money for teh CCTV, offer it to some nice people to help.

I'm back in the groove Monsta, what's next up??

Great post Camille, and some interesting points. I particularly note your opinion that this country is 'built on multiculturalism'. In as much as all countries are, across hundreds of years, I tend to agree, but I fail to see how anyone cannot accept (and I'm not saying you don't, btw) that the current state of 'multiculturalism' in the UK is simply not working. Some cultures and creeds settle and integrate, others don't, and those that don't clearly do not want to. This is where, in my opinion, the problem lies. You're right, the country is a mess, and i'm at pains to explain how to tidy up that mess; however, without sounding too glib and unwilling that is not my job - we vote people in, we employ people, to run this country in the best possible manner. Right now, as you rightly say, it's not happening, and it is always the periods where people become disillusioned with the 'mainstream' political parties, and where apathy is concerned, that the extremists gain in popularity. Talk to any group of youngster coming up to school age, and before everyone jumps down my throat this is a generalisation, and ask them their views on the different political parties; a good proportion - in fact, a worrying proportion - will tell you it 'doesn't matter, they all do the same thing anyway' and, to a point, they are absolutely right. It's not just the pre-voting age populace who espouse that view either, for turn out figures at the last few elections - general and otherwise - have been utterly woeful. You are also right in that we must not be hoodwinked into voting for the BNP, a party with associations with some very dubious organisations, but neither must we deny them a voice; what is needed is for the 'major' parties to step up a gear and get to grips with what the people want. Most of us consider many aspects to be a greater problem than immigration - I do - but when all is said and done a rising population, one that is bolstered heavily by largely uncontrolled immigration, is always going to present problems.

More correctly,it' my choice.

I know this one - its the KTM XBow, and it's in production now, I think.

True to a point, but also missing the fact that the thousands you mention were also fighting for the right for free speech. You can't have a country 'free from tyrants, dictators and fascism' unless you impose very strict laws and rules upon those who wish to speak out. It simply doesn't follow. Remember that what Hitler and the Nazi regime wanted was to impose a very strict way of life on people, and to eliminate certain groups, and that is precisely what those who argue that the BNP, and others who dare to raise controversial issues, should nto be allowed a voice. It's no different, it's simply directed in a different manner. We live in a day and age when daring to speak ones mind tends to find you labelled: I question the immigration policy in this country and am branded a 'racist' for daring to suggest it may be the cause of problems; I question the very dodgy premise of 'multi cultural society' and am branded the same; likewise, the man who dared ask 'Why are we letting immigrants in when we have a rising unemployment rate?' on Question Time was instantly labelled by my good friend Mrs Vic as a 'BNP supporter'. With due respect, surely that question was aimed at teh Labour representative, as it is their immigration policy that is under the microscope? How do we know said man was not a staunch Labour voter, fed up with his party's inability to get anything right? The same 'labelling' occurs in many other walks of life: dare to question whether the Climate Change problem is as big as they say, or is man made at all, and one is branded a nasty savage who wants to kill Polar Bears. I don't, I love them, although the hairy two ton bastards certainly want to kill, and eat, me! That is, of course, straying from the point, but I find it sad that we cannot express an 'alternative' view without being 'labelled' and accused from all angles.

Funny that, I've never had a headache from drinking Tavern piss, and I drink plenty of it.

Pleased to see this is getting some healthy debate, for it is what is needed. Rather than removing the right for these people to speak, we must give them the opportunity to put their point across, and then oppose it rationally and sensibly. This is what, I thought, Question Time was meant to allow for - Thursday's show did not. Mrs Vic wrote: "...certainly think that the audience was representitive of the weekly audiences of the show: do you expect a show to suddenly invite a coach load of ignorant oiks and skinheads just because there's a certain panellist?...." Quite the opposite, as it happens. For one, the gentleman who raised the question early on about Griffin's comments on the holocaust tells us now he applied a year or more ago, and was contacted just 24hours to come on this show. I wonder why? Furthermore, it now transpires that audience members were instructed to pose questions other than those they had originally intended, and were also instructed to be deliberately provocative. I wonder why? Far from being racist i'm a very, very tolerant man, one interested in others culture and history, creed and religion, but I cannot join in the frenzy of calling for Nick Griffin's head. He doesn't deserve it, but he is entitled to have his say.

Hamburger, you simply back up my point. Whether the gentleman in question has his roots in thos 16th century immigrants makes no difference. I sense, as usual, that as I have dared to state that I think the bnp should have a voice I'm somehow classed with the racists. You couldn't be more wrong.

Now mrs vic, ill keep this short as I'm in the pub. To compare elected politicians ...no matter how disagreeable their views...with rapists is missing the point. Furthermore, the voice you brand a racist was merely asking a relevant question. If you advocate removing their voice you are no better than the people you berate who do precisely the same. As for the baroness, I apprecviated her sensible responses, and her willingness to accept that many many people are concerned about levels of immigration in this country. If you wish to discuss I'm up for a pint! Don't get me wrong I'm not supporting griffin or his party, but his right to be heard.

Before I go on, i'll just say that i'm in no way a BNP supporter, and in no shape or form do i 'rate' Nick Griffin; however, I have to disagree with you - Mrs Vic - that he was made to look a complete *** (insert chosen insult. I fully expected him to be so, and I was quite looking forward to a whitewash ( no pun intended) but faced with the simpering, pathetic Jack Straw and the complete no-hoper from the Lib-Dems, plus a token Black American historian and a very impressive Baroness Warsi (hope I got the name right) he was hardly exposed at all. There was nothing new bar the 'you're a Nazi' jibes that we always get, and that he always refutes, and it was quite clear that this, quite disgustingly, was set up to try and make the BNP look like a bunch of idiots. I think, quite franly, it backfired. I notice your reference to... "and yes, even the BNP supporter in the audience had his say... some indecipherable shouting by an unwashed greasy man... even Dimbleby couldn't be bothered..." and I found that, and one other instance, to be rather disconerting. If you are referring to the man I think you are, he simply put the question 'why are we allowing so many immigrants when we have a rising unemployment rate?' he didn't say he was a BNP supporter at all, and for Dimbleby to dismiss it with 'You've made your point' was, to be honest, disgusting; it was a fair question, a good one, and one that needs addressing, as subsequent discussion revealed. Griffin, quite rightly, later expressed his opinion that the BBC is a very biased organisation, and this merely proved that point. If Question Time is intended to give all participants a fair voice, this edition didn't. The other point that had me cringing was an example of the ridiculous political correctness that pervades such discussions as this; Straw, in answering a question from a man with very dark coloured skin, actually said '.....I'm from immigrant stock, you may or may not be.....' and, I must say, that has to be the funniest line of the show. The man was clearly from immigrant stock, and there was no need to shy away from the fact, a fact which - as was clear - the questioner was not disputing. All of thi smacks of sheer nonsense from the BBC, and I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with a lot of what Griffin has said since. Those who wish to denigrate him and his party, who think they should not be given a voice, should not be afforded what is referred to as the 'oxygen of publicity' should wathch their step, for without the right to speak, to say what one believes, we lose all other rights of freedom. I don't agree with much of the BNP's policies, so I don't vote for them. I don't agree with much of other parties policies either, so I don't vote for them. I do not, however, insist that they should not be heard, because I disagree with them. Furthermore, the historical knowledge shown by the political sides of the panel last night was woeful: bar theh token Black American (a historian) all seemed to have no idea that Churchill was a noted racist, all continue to misinterpret the much quoted, always out of context, Rivers of Blood speech by Powell, and all seemed oblivious to the rights of others to express views. My deepest concern, however, comes from the fact that despite the sensible and down to earth Baroness Warsi, Nick Griffin came across as less of a naughty schoolboy than the rest.

That makes sense. Next??

By the way, Cobra used a Ford 427 (or 289), not the Chevy.

Panther Six, 1977.

Now you're talking - a truly glorious car that, it's an Iso Rivolta Grifo SII from 1970 onwards until about '73?

Labia?

u'll have to do better than that when dealing with an interested and curious pedant such as me! I had never heard of it so googled it; it's called 'Edonis' and the first model was produced in 2001. Next!

B...Engineering....Adonis??