threegee

http://www.bedlingto...id=1&m=5&y=2010 After Things can only get worse Thursday - whoever gets in, we'll probably need to start a campaign to keep the street lights on! Any reply you get before then will be pure electioneering and not worth the paper it's written on. Any reply after will likely cite the (Tory?) cuts. Neither reply will mention who's incompetence got us into the worst economic mess of all time - the real reason why even the status quo here is no longer an option. Every Labour Government in history has ended in an economic disaster; this time they've surpassed themselves! In an area where one third of the workforce works for HM Government the cuts will be harder felt than elsewhere. Sorry to be so negative, but that's the hard reality. Save yourself and your own family, and our town will muddle through - as it always has.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8543906.stm

So... the BBC has decided that it can't do everything! Thing is, how does a 25% cut in staff working on the Internet equate to halving the number of web pages available? Sounds like a poor deal for the licence payer to me. Don't think our Town is going to miss 6 Music and The Asian Network though. Pity just a tiny tiny bit of that £600M couldn't go to real community broadcasting. But, the Beeb it running hard to preserve its empire and not to dissipate it.

Well, as I remember, it's in my historical atlas on a couple of distant dates (at least once as Belintun ?) but there definitely is a distinctive force-field shown around the place too - an ecclesiastical one! Maybe yours say Printed in Assintun?

Was this before or after the Martians placed their homing beacon in it? Are you complaining that we've been passed over for taxation? Think we are about to play catch-up here!

That's about what "the books" say Andy. But in the end it's speculation; there's no real evidence anywhere anyone seems to be aware of. Bit like William Shakespeare really; but don't let the S on A tourist trade hear you say that! The Michael Longridge history is far better documented, and more socially relevant. But, guess what happened to the heritage he left the town?

Lost in the mists of time. The Nail is almost as far as it goes in the "history books". It has been moved (twice?) though. All in the spirit of civic vandalism which always seems to have permeated the place. "List" what's of no particular historic interest, and destroy the actual heritage in the name of progress - which in the end never happens - has long been the game. Unsurprising when you note the sort of people that have formerly been put in charge! Planning Department! The Third Reich would have done a better job, and destroyed far less! So, I suppose we just have to be thankful that it's still there at all. I seem to remember Mrs Potts (Independent Councillor, and then Post Mistress) had a lot to do with it being saved from "the planners". I never understood why Trotter's Memorial had to be sidelined. It's not as if the Front Street at that point wasn't more than wide enough. And, it was a very distinctive symbol of the Town; you knew you'd arrived in Bedlington. But the world needed another large roundabout - presumably to cope with the huge volume of traffic routing to our prosperous shops? Then another change in policy and the bypass. Or was it that someone who could, woke up one morning and did? Certainly I'm not aware of anyone who had to live with this being consulted!

Yeah, I fell for the Tobin Tax idea too. But since listening to a few people in-the-know (and one of them is Unswervin' Mervin) it's sadly not going to work. A classic case of too good to be true; somewhere the books have to balance, and someone has to pay the bill. I still remain to be persuaded that a straight levy on liquidity the banks create is not a bad idea. It seems crazy to me that licencing them to print money - and thus make huge profits with it - is not something the public purse shouldn't derive some large benefit from. Apparently revenue producing licences for semi-monopolistic activities are only for things like struggling community radio stations. Steven still seems to think that this problem is one of a few bad banks. It's not, it's systemic! Lehman sailed only very slightly closer to the wind than many, and the banks were only doing what banks do. If you are going to regulate them at all then you have at least to understand what you are regulating. It was a failure to understand what was going on, and a delusion that the economy could walk on water. Both in the failure and in the delusion our own Mr B had a rather big hand. Remember "an end to boom and bust"? Remember Mr Toast of the City, and how we were all in this together at the Lord Mayor's bean-feast? Our future was in financial services and the new globalnomics meant we could leave the getting-hands-dirty stuff to the minions in the Far East. Global problem? Certainly not from where the guardians of China's countless billions stand! But hopefully, to them, we're too big (customers) to let fail! I dunno about the fat-cat stuff. I think good old socialist envy comes into this argument at some point. On the other hand where is real capitalism and healthy competition in all this when failure is so generously rewarded? Brown/Darling must go, the quicker the better; the FSA is a joke and needs scrapping, put the light-touch regulation back in the hands of the B of E - the only one of the three institutions that seems to have the slightest grasp of what is really going on. Greece is a basket case; they (both major parties) are apparently demanding that the Germans get them out of the mess by paying war reparations. Now that's a way of persuading your only friend that has a thick enough wallet, that you've come to your senses, and will not over indulge in future! Especially when it seems that Germany did pay them quite substantial reparations way back when. Turkey in the EU? Didn't WE invade them at one point?

New Labour promises us "A future fair for all" if they win the election. Where should this "fair" be held? Nominations here: .....

I challenge anyone local to get a perfect score in this "Level: Easy" BBC quiz to teach foreigners correct English pronunciation. http://www.bbc.co.uk...ron/quiz/quiz1/ Toffee-nosed gits!!

I'm not sure I know what you mean by " the market always acts in ways to enhance its own validity, be that up or down." The fact is there were countless billions in "toxic debt" swilling around. That means that it had been through so many hands and so many transformations (all on margin) that no one knew where it actually came from, and at what point a default would ensue. When people finally woke up to the fact that a lot of the stuff was tied to people who had been mis-sold houses they couldn't afford, and worse fraudulent mortgage applications, the whole pack of cards started to collapse. This was a massive failure of regulation, both by our FSA and the Fed in the US. The banks were only doing what they'd always done - making money by moving bits of paper around. It is not and never has been a global problem. Not even a European problem; theirs is tied to other factors touched on in the SocGen bit above; though we have undoubtedly contaminated them. If you are arguing that no bank should ever be allowed to fail, then by all means nationalise them, because there's no point in them being limited companies. You've removed the moral hazard that makes capitalism work - and work well - for the benefit of everyone. But that's no guarantee that the same thing won't happen under state ownership, and it practically guarantees inefficiency and waste. If a problem of this scale were to happen under state ownership it would take the country down with it. And, through Brown/Darling's mismanagement it may yet do so to the UK. Certainly one thing is clear - you can't increase the money supply on the scale that has already been done without roaring inflation breaking out. That's a very strange thing to say at a time of record low interest rates; it sounds counter intuitive. But this *is* going to happen before too long. Pity is that it looks like it's going to happen on another watch to that of the people who caused it!

Lehman didn't implode the market Malc - the market did it for Lehman. As I explained earlier something had to go. All the merchant banks were under the same strain of circulating dodgy debt. A decision was taken to support other banks but not support Lehman Bros. But we had pre-warning over here and it was ignored. Letting NR go would have provided the requisite bloodletting and moral hazard; it would also have done it earlier, and today's taxpayer debt mountain would not be quite so high. As the crack slowly progressed and much bigger RBS failed, Darling did not act in the public interest as claimed. In publishing the then exchange of memos (why do these things always have to be leaked) between him and the BoE this week, the FT has done a public service. In these it is made very clear that the mandarins at the BoE foresaw major problems and risk in stepping in, and were effectively warning him not to. His reply illustrates that he didn't really understand what was going on. To me it also says that he put politics before prudence, and isn't a fit person to be in charge of our finances. Gordon Brown's single still-standing claim to anything pretending to be economic competence is that he gave control of interest rates to the BoE to stop them being used as the former political lever. Yet here - when it really counted - the BoE's prudence has been undermined for political gain in a much more fundamental way.

You're nicked for airspace violation! - C.A.A. "Merseyside Police said they had been unaware they needed a licence to fly..." http://news.bbc.co.u...ide/8517726.stm

Confused - what's facebook? Anyone seen my Filofax?

This whole Olympics thing is a lousy piece of marketing. In Winter I want to see sun and sand, in Summer I want to see cool. Therefore the Olympics should always be held in the Southern Hemisphere. Permanent Olympic villages somewhere in South America; look at the money saved! You know it makes sense!

Why don't you write to local business and offer them free advertising in the first year to the value of any contribution? In hard times that has to be an easier proposition than an outright gift. Plus of course an entry on the eternal roll of honour of those that got our community radio off the ground. It would be as interesting to see who didn't appear on that as who did! In fact stick the proposition up here too. Andy will doubtless run your display ads on the banner engine.

The Monsta Mail: "most the trees have gone because man chopped them down" The Times: http://www.timesonli...ticle637004.ece Discover how many trees there are in the World here: http://wiki.answers....re_in_the_world

Euro Area Headed for Break-Up, SocGen's Edwards Says "according to Societe Generale SA's top-ranked strategist Albert Edwards.... Even if governments' could slash their fiscal deficits, the lack of competitiveness within the euro zone needs years of relative (and probably given the outlook elsewhere, absolute) deflation. Any help given to Greece merely delays the inevitable break-up of the euro zone.” Not going to go down too well with the euro-at-any-price politicians that one then. Lehman failed Stephen because the particularly nasty CEO rubbed too many people up the wrong way. Someone HAD to be thrown to the wolves, and the old boy network didn't need much prompting as to who. If NR had been allowed to go the UK situation wouldn't have got quite as bad, and the taxpayer wouldn't be in for quite such a staggering bill. No one would have missed a piddling little regional BS that had got above itself, was being run by idiots, and had near disconnected with its customer base. The small guys would have been fully protected at a tiny fraction of the cost - if any at all - to the taxpayer. And the big boys would have got their comeuppance. Instead the big boys were rewarded for their folly, and the small guys get to pick up the massive bill - though this will be well hidden, and spread over years if not decades. In any form of capitalism companies have got to be allowed to fail. If there's a structural problem you don't paper over the cracks, you pull down and build afresh. The market is pretty good at this if left well alone, but politicians are allowed to meddle, so they do. Meanwhile the final tab just keeps on growing. Essentially what SocGen is saying there.

No, it would be the plant life that would grow in arid regions when we spend just a tiny fraction of what is being proposed on carbon capture on irrigation to grow plant crops to feed starving people. Read the whole thing! There's a job for you with the IPCC, picking what suits you, quoting it out of context, and completely ignoring the rest! "most the trees have gone because man chopped them down" - now there's a scientific fact! Who's allotment would this be on? Been to Kielder recently? The problem with bees is a mystery, there's nothing to connect it with pesticides, and some beekeepers report no problem. Not that trees or bees have anything to do with the subject of this thread. But ask yourself how, if we can't discover what is going on right now with bees flying under our noses, we can predict the climate decades in advance with enough confidence to spend countless billions of pounds on carbon capture in an attempt to change it. The fact is that last night's weather forecast for today has been drastically revised, and they are still pretending that they can predict it five days in advance! But hey, that is weather, and we are talking climate. With climate 15 years is just a statistical blip - except when it's a 15 years the IPCC says is climate and not weather. If this year is particularly warm, this will absolutely prove m.m. global warming. One in sixteen should be good enough for anyone. If it's cool then it will be a small part of an ongoing statistical blip. If the statistical blip extends another 15 years we'll declare a draw - insufficient data - further research needed - you didn't properly fund the research, and retire on our inflated pensions. Win win for the IPCC and it's ever increasing budget. But, no more megabucks for researching the ozone layer; no more "hole in the ozone layer" - get the connection? No, you're too young.

Now which organisation would that be? The whole mass hysteria seems to be predicated on the "hockey stick" thing. Would that it is warming up a bit on a permanent basis. Lives will be saved; more food will be grown; less fossil fuels used for heating; etc. etc. Where is the downside to a bit of warming? You can only create a doom and disaster scenario if there's a sudden non-linear take off. So of course you have to invent a computer model which predicts just this. All the records show that no such rapid change has ever taken place in the entire 4 billion year history of the Earth, and that there's a natural mechanism built in to limit the Earth's temperature to just under 25c. And that's despite all the cataclysms the Universe has thrown at it. Granted, 25c is a fair bit warmer than today, but what a gloriously fertile and productive Earth that would be. Lots of extra CO2 would be consumed by the plant life too (self-regulation again). Exactly the conditions that led to mammals and the human race in the first place! In other words if it hadn't been for a warmer Earth we wouldn't be here today. But the tree-huggers need another lever. We are told that the people in the Sahara are going to be fried in order to fuel our greed. But hang on, the Sahara has only been there for a couple of thousand years! Was the encroachment of the desert into formerly very fertile land due to the internal combustion engine and industrialisation? The point is that if such a thing were ever to happen as the "hockey stick effect" the ludicrous (and totally unfordable) sums proposed for carbon capture would feed, clothe, house, and air-condition just about any afflicted area of the earth many times over. And, we'd then be spending money at a point of real need, not throwing it at something which will in all common sense never happen. When people on our Earth are still starving it's totally immoral to be proposing such hair brained schemes as carbon capture, and to promote the silliness of carbon trading. Where's the money for irrigation which would really help these starving peoples? That irrigation BTW would be massively carbon negative, and there's a case that it would be more than economically neutral. What are we going to do with the carbon we capture? Oh yes, bury it underground! Could it be that there's no reason to fund such an obvious, compassionate and moral thing as ensuring the starving people of the world can grow their own food on a decent scale, because it doesn't suit anyone's hidden agenda? What's at the root of all this is an alliance of convenience between the green lobby, a small group of bent "scientists" out for their jollies, and sound-bite politicians. Journalists and teachers do have more than their fair share of the agin-any-sort-of-progress mob, so the hoodwinking and indoctrination can continue. You and I both know that none of this crap would have got past our forefathers. They may not have had the level of education of people today, but they did have good old horse-sense.