Basically he is trotting this utter wank out for fun I predict his next rubbish to be...

"Poor Old People.... Any Point why we keep them alive?"
"Cull all Blind people they haven't got anything to live for"
"Put Single Mothers in the Circus and let us throw food at them"

In contrast, the report found that house husbands are generally much less happy. The results of David Cameron's campaign to measure well-being also reveal that the happiest people are traditional married families.

Darius,London,The answer [to why women work] is Mackinnon and Koss,2 of the earlier gender feminists as opposed to the equality feminists of former years. Gender feminists do not want the female to stay at home playing housewife,they want all women to sally forth and deprive men of jobs wherever they can .To this end they have cornered the market in surveys and expert opinions and the media will print any figure they care to give it without peer review or check.They operate from all universities throughout the west and have been busy ousting any male lecturers,teachers,professors,by dint of making such strident rules that nobody can fail to break them.They have even become physical at times,such is the force they exert.Obviously they go to the heart of government and can be found badgering for every piece of legislation that can be found to enhance female prospects at the expense of males. Househusbands do not have the same rights as wives in the event of a split and cannot easily get back to work

- michael savell, brittany,france, 29/2/2012 14:40 Rating 1

The best of the Pixar movies, apart from the first Toy Story, is The Incredibles. It suffered a bit because it was a family film that was too sophisticated for children, but it was also the kind of James Bond movie the people who make James Bond movies can’t do any more.

It stood alongside Dirty Harry as one of the rare Hollywood hits to take a stand against political correctness, and it skewered Cherie Blair in one short scene. That alone was worth the ticket – how many of our own legions of self-regarding stand-up comedians ever took a pop at that ripe target?

Among those who are not married, relationships split up faster than Harry Redknapp changes clubs. Two million couples do not inconvenience themselves to share the same accommodation, on account of how much it would cost them in lost benefits, and we have two million children growing up with single parents. I know there are fine single parents bringing up outstanding children. I have also seen the evidence that shows the undeniable connection between children who grow up without fathers and school failure, unemployment, crime, drugs, and so miserably on.

You would have thought most politicians would say, ah, let's encourage more of the parents who won't marry to get married. But they don't. This is because 1970s Greerite feminists hate marriage, which oppresses women, and the Whitehall departments, universities, charities and quangos are so stuffed with people who accept the anti-marriage orthodoxy that only a handful of the more courageous sort of politicians ever dare to differ.

Now here comes Miss Featherstone, who says the way to spread the benefits of marriage is to extend it to a tiny number of gay couples. This has got a lot of people scratching their heads, wondering why. Is it because Mr Cameron wants to stop looking like a Nasty Party leader? How many votes are there in it when same-sex marriage was hardly the number one campaigning slogan of gay lobby groups before the Prime Minister brought the subject up?

It's actually nothing to do with the gay lobby, although no activist worth his or her salt is going to look a gift horse in the mouth. It's not about gays, it's about marriage, and the thinking goes like this: if everybody is married, then nobody is.

You will have noticed the implications of same-sex marriage legislation already. It starts with the spending of millions on removing the words husband and wife from the legal lexicon. We haven’t been told officially yet, but my bet is when the new law appears couples getting married in register offices or approved premises like hotels and stately homes will no longer be pledging their future to their wedded husband or wedded wife.

It's going to be wedded partner from now on, and if you don’t think that language has much resonance, comfort yourself with the thought that you are no longer being homophobic.

By the way, don't you just love that word, homophobia? It was invented a decade or so ago to describe people who disagree with whatever the gay lobby may be saying ... The word has the useful characteristic of changing its meaning to fit in with Stonewall's line of the week.

You wait until people find that bride and bridegroom – which will have to be removed from marriage certificates - are banned words too. Miss Featherstone is telling every young girl in the country: 'You will never be a bride.'

'Lawfully wedded partners': Why opening marriage up to everyone will kill it stone dead

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1pJlBIjW1

Anti-semitism has become common on the political left, usually creeping in under the banner of opposition to Israel ... My own view is that among the better-off and well-established kind of Labour families there are some for whom anti-semitism has always been an instinct, as it has among upper middle-class people generally, far more so than among the working class. Ken will be doing himself no harm with this sort of supporter.

He is unlikely to get much traction with white working class voters. The working class in London was not impressed by Mosley's anti-semitism in the thirties, and then it fought against Nazi Germany and suffered Hitler's bombing raids. The experience left a permanent distaste for race politics, as Enoch Powell discovered to his cost in 1968 when he tried to rally working class voters against black immigration, and as the British National Party has found out in more recent times.

The working class voters Ken really wants to impress are Muslim. He may calculate, and a student of electoral politics as smart as Livingstone does a lot of calculating, that there are many Muslim votes to be won with the right sort of sneering attitude to Jews and the right sort of respectful attitude to Islamic clerics with whom few other politicians would willingly share a platform, or come to that, a city.

The experience left a permanent distaste for race politics, as Enoch Powell discovered to his cost in 1968 when he tried to rally working class voters against black immigration, and as the British National Party has found out in more recent times.

There was a trail on the radio the other day for some navel-gazing BBC series on the glories of television. If featured an anonymous celebrity – very probably a comedian – saying something like: 'It is absolutely beyond doubt that TV has been a tremendous force for good.'

Discuss.

We could start with the programmes that television bigwigs regard as the landmark achievements of their medium. How about Cathy Come Home, the heartrending 1966 documentary about a homeless family that did more than anything else to shake up housing policy in Britain?

As a result we have some of the most desolate and hopeless social housing estates in the developed world, crammed full of the benefit dependent, criminals and gangs.

Thanks to television, the aspirational working class who once underpinned the respectability and decency of council estates have been driven out of social housing.

We could look at television news. If it is a window on the world, it is a clouded one. For 15 years or so, BBC TV news has ignored immigration, failed to report or reflect the popular grip of eurosceptic views, ceaselessly made propaganda for the green lobby and its claims over climate change, and leaned dangerously close to open support for one political party.

[I]t is time for soap producers to have a rethink about what they believe is appropriate for family audiences. In particular, they might stop preaching to us all.

You cannot watch a soap in this country without being smacked between the eyes by some storyline based on what the makers reckon to be a big ishoo. They aim to enlighten us and persuade us to behave better by the dramatic presentation of these important concerns.
Gay adoption? Acquaintance rape? Transsexuals? Coronation Street’s got them, and it’s not shy about telling you what you should think.

If you aim to tell the viewers what they should believe and how they should behave, you bear some responsibility when one of the madder ones takes you seriously.

If programme makers were to stop trying to turn their soaps into vehicles for indoctrination and social transformation, they would be less ripe targets for criticism when indoctrination goes wrong.

What about newspapers? Can think of one that doesn't mind going into graphic details about what child rapist and killer do, and is quite happy to post video clips of little girls getting shot.
- Karen, Glasgow, 03/4/2012 15:21

Thanks to television, the aspirational working class who once underpinned the respectability and decency of council estates have been driven out of social housing.