I don't normally support the taking of industrial action but today, I support the firefighters stance on their retirement age absolutely.
Firefighting is an incredibly heavy duty job. That the likes of the Cabinet - sissy boys like Cameron and IDS - think that firefighters just sit around all day doing nothing is self evident in their demand that frontline firefighters should not retire at 55 but should still be expected to scale ladders climb into burning buildings and carry a 12stone dead weight over their shoulders down a ladder in intense heat whilst wearing very heavy fireproof clothing and helmets at the age of 60.
Is it possible that this cynical, morally corrupt government, thinks that by asking firefighters to do this work until they are 60 will mean that, in actuarial terms, many more will die before they are able to draw their pension?
It's an absolute disgrace. Firefighting is a job for young fit men. 55 is an absolute maximum on the front line. Not only does it place the firefighter at risk but also his/her colleagues and the wider public who they do so well to protect.
Perhaps if they more than halved the generous and undeserved package they provide to too many politicians, they may be able to continue to fund firefighters pensions in a correct and sensible way.
I really don't know what to say Toots.
Life is really a crock of shit for so many people at the moment and, like with a troubled child, if you feed the terror you can only expect to get more of it.
Take Syria as a case in point. Without the west intervening in something they really have little understanding of, the so called opposition forces would have nothing to feed on perhaps and people might not die. If that is true, then the western press is as much to blame for the loss of life because they feed the terror. I really don't put Assad - an intelligent man, not a warlord - as a mass murderer content to use toxic weapons on his own people but I do think that is perfectly feasible at the hands of the evil factions that abound in the region funded and supported by corrupt western interests like the CIA with its own agenda.
Pakistan; Christians slaughtered by their fellow countrymen/women in a meaningless (to us) suicide bomb attack where peaceful people gather to worship. Horrendous and incomprehensible even for an agnostic like me.
The list can go on but decent society needs decent people like you to continue to express their horror at such outrages without feeding the troll and to implore those charged in our society with our interests not to equal the terror by warmongering to suit their own political ends.
It won't go away if you just bury your head in the sand.
And so you have herts.
I don't see a need for an apology; you've acted quite correctly IMHO by constructing the thread the way you have and then offering your take on it.
:thumbup:
But no, the BBC is not fit for purpose and the extortion of the masses in a tax by any other name is disgraceful.
The Charter should be revoked, Lord Patten put out to grass and the BBC should fight for its funding in exactly the same way that all the other operators do - on a level playing field.
If we all went back to walking to local shops buying local produce, we might just not need all the extra energy they keep telling us we need.
A good news story for once...
Forget the blots on the seascape... Wave technology for an island like the UK has to be the way to go...
I'd lve to read star777's take on this :grin:
Why do the English do this? Just tell her to take it off or accept the consequences. Everyone should just protest, if required to attend court, by wearing some sort of mask to disguise their true identity.
What's good for the goose....
Yes, herts.
Those wilth longer memories will remember the use of chemical weapons by the USA in living memory so it seems a bit rich that they are all for war war with Syria.
The UK doesn't escape such attention either as they have blood on their hands too.
And you have to pay how much just because you have a television - even though yo don't want to wach such rubbish?
Outrageous.
Like st3v3, I have only a few pairs.
Curious thing though.
When I buy a new pair, I tend not to start using them until about a year after purchase :undecided:
I am currently wearing out a pair of loafers I bought in France about 15 years ago. I guess they cost around the equivalent of £10 then and have been incredibly good value!
Controversially, I subscribe to the notion that giving women shoes only encourages them to go wandering off so best to restrict the number of pairs they have :grin:
