I'm thinking we could run the country with a lot less civil servants. I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

I remember when my mother was in hospital with her stroke, in a ward given over to patients not ICU, but still needing extensive care.

I asked the sister what the nurse to bed ratio was, and she replied that because of the high requirements, it worked out at abot 1 nurse to 3 beds.

She was less than amused to hear that that day the figures for managers in the NHS were released.

1 manager per bed. I kid you not.

I'm just amused that you are happy to quote the Guardian. I thought they had a nasty pinko agenda that you were completely against?

I loved the bit at the bottom.

"I would like to remind the Daily Mail [sic] that while it is a bit bad to leave a swearword on Andrew Sachs' answerphone, what's worse - leaving a swearword on Andrew Sachs' answerphone or tacitly supporting Adolf Hitler when he took charge of the Third Reich?"

Yeah, it pays to remember that the Mail was very fond of old Adolph and his views on social reform. A lot of Mail readers still think that way it seems.

Not that IS a bigotted rag.

I think it matches the subject quite nicely.

Its not Russel Brands fault that he is given a six million pound contract,its the fault of the person handing out the contract,here lies the problem with the UK today,the way people see money spread out.

Has RB been given such a contract? Was it for him, or for a contract to produce a series like JR?

A point about the Andrew Sachs incident. First off, it was tasteless, and, worst of all, not funny. Second, that it was released was the fault of the BBC editor running that show, because it wasn't live, so they had time to think.

Thirdly, all comedians pushing the limits can be very funny, but they need an editor there to remove the dross, because no comedian produces work that is brilliant all the time. A lot of crap is produced and that dross has to be removed to leave the gold at the bottom.

There seems to be an unseemly haste here and elsewhere to crucify both JR and RB. I'd just ask people to keep criticism honest, and not soil it with spite and dishonest reporting.

I noticed that almost all the looters on TV were male. My husband explained - the girls wanted to loot but spent half the night walking up and down the high street trying to find matching shoes and handbags before they took anything.

I still can't get over the guy who looted a bag of supermarket 'value' rice.

I would say that the facts are clear enough and as far as I am aware not in dispute.
Of course the Guardian had little choice but to report an incident which was headline news on every other branch of the media.
They would have looked even more stupid than normal had they failed to do so, or attempted to distort the facts which were clearly not in dispute.
As for it only being one incident.....
Well firstly it was the only incident that was caught live.
How many more there may have been that were edited out we will likely never know.
In any event it gives something of an insight into the guys way of thinking and makes his ramblings in the article appear somewhat farcical and hypocrytical to say the least.
I would suggest that anyone who had to go to the extreme of scraping the bottom of the barrel to that extent in order to try and entertain the public would appear to be desperately lacking in talent, decency and brain cells.

So what would you say about the people who enjoy his comedy?

Rosemary

And when you slagged them off for reporting the the second bullet was a police round?

Probably just collecting his weekly shopping having possibly already filled his basket elsewhere of more lucrative articles.
Who knows, but I would think it quite possible that those caught on camera stealing minor items could well have already helped themselves to better stuff elsewhere without being spotted.

I'd bet that he is so desperate to slag off JR & RB that he can see no good in them, or anything to do with them.

It didn't matter that the Guardian was reporting the TRUTH. People who are biased enough simply can't register anything that might contradict their world view.

It's that inability to apply critical reasoning.

To paint someone black, and be unable to see good in your particular hate object is the hallmark of the true bigot.

Because at that time no supporting evidence had been officially announced or proven and I merely suggested that everyone held fire until such time as the true facts were established.

Not unreasonable I would have thought.

I dunno. I suppose it's possible, but it just strikes me as silly to risk a criminal record for a bag of rice, that's all.

Then again, I'm not a looter, so what do I know?

I would suggest that it's a sad and pathetic character with little hope in life that doesn't have at least a little good in them.
No doubt the vast majority of these looters will have done someone a good turn at some stage in their lives.
Very few things are totally black and white,... its simply a question of balance and when the bad clearly outweighs the good by a substantial margin therein lies the problem.