I have rarely if ever felt bullied on here. I am confident in my views and quite frankly people inanely mocking just bolters that confidence! So, don't worry about me (unless and until I complain of maltreatment).

a) Dally isn't 'bullied'. The responses he attracts – and has over many years – are not attacks on him because he is, for instance, male, but are attacks on his opinions (some of which have, more than once, amounted to generalised bigotry – not targeting an individual on these boards, for instance). And there are plenty of people on these forums who have had to learn to have a slightly thicker hide if they're going to join in certain discussions in particular, since those discussions generate deep feelings.

b) Hull White Star was being attacked purely and simply because she is registered disabled. That's close to what would constitute a hate crime.

Now friends – back to the original discussion, because that is the end of the explanation.

Don't want to send this off on a total tangent, plus I'm not 100% up on the whole Damo/Forum relationship, but I'm pretty sure there is a long history of Damo antagonising many contributors with some of his past posts ( something I believe even he has acknowledged doing).

Today's contributions from BrettKenny were increasingly nasty and had nothing at all to do with debate, but crossed the line into the unacceptable.

As I said – that's the end of the matter.

Thank you.

Actually, more often than not the attacks do get personal - as I have pointed out on many occasions. However, that invariably reinforces my view.

Interestingly, the Evening Standard ran an article tonight positing that the age of low taxes for the megarich of the US may be about to end. Previously the argument that this was essential to the economy was won, but now it's questioned. If the US start to tax the wealthy more, our government will. We always try to act in tandem with them as we seem to have lost the will to think for ourselves.

Sooner that than being a simpleton who cannot see what really is happening in setting dog against dog. It's an old tory tactic, divide and rule. They've tried it with the teachers and other public sector unions, they're upset that the same tactic with the NHS appears to have failed. But they still seem to be on a winner with "the workshy benefits scroungers"

They did indeed.

If said poster has any sort of conscience then a full and unreserved apology would be appropriate. I won't hold my breath though.

Whilst Dally has some controversial views I have never seen him make personal insults or try and belittle another user, there's a few on here could learn from his example.

The problem the Tories have run into on the NHS is that they are faced with a difficult opponent in doctors. Doctors are the Tory worst nightmare - well organised and disciplined into a union, with residual loyalty towards New Labour who gave them the best deal on pay and conditions in history, who have a strong level of public support (its hard to sell to the public the idea of doctors being workshy leftists), and a level of income and education that gives them a strong public voice and also means they operate in traditional Tory social circles.

Lansley's whole selling point at the start of the NHS reforms was that these reforms would mean doctors made the decisions, not 'bureaucrats and politicians', because when it comes to patient care, 'doctors know best'. So now the doctors are picking holes in the proposals it is difficult to backtrack and say that actually bureaucrats and politicans are right and they are wrong.

Another problem with the proposed cuts is that the mythical "middle tier management" who were going to be the target of all cost savings just don't seem to exist in big enough numbers to provide all of the targeted cost savings and its becoming increasingly apparent in both the NHS and police that front line services will be affected and are already being affected (Google Pontefract A&E services), despite absolute assurances that they wouldn't be touched and that it would be "unnecessary" bureaucrats that would go.

Its going to be an interesting summer ...

well said sally

Some interesting graphics showing how productivity as compared to wealth distribution has changed over the years. The study was based in the US but I doubt UK figures would differ wildly.

I have always said our civilisation peaked ca. 1968 - 1970. The graphs show that the wheels feels off right at the beginning of the 1970s. There were a whole host of factors behind that - the obvous ones like domestic strife, the oil crisis etc; but I think in an overall analysis the thing that we overlook is the rise of new competition. Japanese manufacturing really started to impact on British firms then, as did Italian's, etc in the field of white goods. Since then we have seen wider competition from the Far East, etc. This, rather than any domestic policy, explains why wages for the lower half are reducing in real terms. Those for the higher earners rise because there is less competition (currently) in sopisticated, intellectualised fields. Our huge problem comes in about 10 years time when China is churning out more creative and hihly trained people in the millions. Then we will know what austerity truly is.

I've never really been able to fully get my head around the fact that the Tories talk about freeing doctors and the police from paperwork etc. to get on with treating patients and catching villains, yet seem to despise the managers put in place to handle the paperwork etc. that theoretically allows doctors to not have to be accountants and policemen not have to be administrators.

That's because in an ideal tory world there would be little, if any paperwork. The police would catch a criminal, then take him straight to court, where he would either be found not guilty and released or more likely: found guilty and carted off to The Clink, the workhouse, a prison hulk, transported to the colonies or simply taken round the back of the court, strung up and hanged. Simple innit?

Because its easier to give the impression that these career politicians, the ones with precious little experience of working outside of a Westminster internship, have all the answers and the answers lie in a tier of unnecessary management that they, and only they have spotted and once they get rid of these people who only consume budget and have no effect on output or service, then all will be well in the world, the fact that precious few of these management positions actually exist or that none of the politicians actually seem to have done any research and can point at one of them seems to escape everyone's attention.

It also helps the cause when its not actually you with blood on your hands but the Health Trust that you assigned the budget to, you spoke out on TV about how easy it was going to be to manage on 20% less budget this year but its not your fault that the Trust interpreted this into 20% less hours for front line staff and you had to close A&E every night at 6pm.

He will?

How does that work then, seeing as he's being paid his bonus in three-year deferred shares?

Not bad business: pocket nearly £1m worth of penny shares (they're currently being traded as junk), then in five years time, cash them in, he won't mind the CGT he has to pay on that lot. Or maybe he could just send them into an offshore trust and avoid any tax liability alltogether?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16772525RBS Chairman gives up his share bonus[/url

Meanwhile, Cameron continues witrh his weaseling lies:

[iThe government said it would not block a £963,000 bonus, also in shares, for RBS chief Stephen Hester. Prime Minister David Cameron said it was up to Mr Hester whether he accepted the bonus. "That's a matter for him, that's obviously his decision." Mr Hester's contract at RBS - which is 82% publicly owned - was agreed by the last Labour government, Mr Cameron said[/i

And not to be outdone, Gideon has spoken to Stephanie Flanders:

[iGeorge Osborne has just told me the government will not vote against Stephen Hester's bonus as a shareholder at the April AGM. Ed Miliband had thrown down the gauntlet on this today, but the chancellor has declined to pick it up[/i

Pair of 2@s. Mebbe the commission that single mothers with pay on their CSA can be lumped into the RBS trough too?

Put Harry Rednapp in charge. Cant do much worser and still will be hailed a good boy if it all goes tits up again.

Unfortunately Redknapp would want more than the RBS board put together

Nah, he's got so much money he keeps forgetting where he's storing it.

Intersting letter in today's Guardian highlighting the farce. Here we have Hester running a state owned bank, potentially getting a million pound bonus for his performance. That performance has consitsted of making many thousands of employees redundant. The writer estimated the costs to the state in terms of lost taxes and higher benefits at 110 million pounds. So, whilst the bank might be less broke it is still broke and any gains he's made for the taxpayer in terms of the bank are offset by the other costs to the state, it's a joke. This is neither capitalism (if it was the bank would not exist) nor communism (if it were we wouldn't be conisdering such levels of remuneration). So what it our new economic system? I'll coin the phrase "insanityism."

I've told you before Mrs D subscribes to it - a sad state of affairs.