Messages

Brown planning to "compel" people to work, Cameron broadly agreeing. Compel? A democratic government wants to compel its people?

Well, in all seriousness, given the reality that there are some people who will cheerfully live on benefit payments and make no effort to find work or won't accept work they can do when it's offered on a plate, how would you resolve this problem?

(I'm making an assumption about the context here, so sorry if I'm off the mark.)

Arbeit macht frei?

I think that's a bit OTT.

Regards

Robin

I thoroughly enjoyed that on the news tonight, let Labour spin out of that 

This is what people in power think of us lot, we are the shit on the sole of their shoes. He only apologised because he was found out, I wonder how many other life long labour supporters he thinks are shits.

Just got in, so this sent me off to the BBC website. I wouldn't be surprised if this costs him more than Rochdale.

Funnily enough, his apology annoys me more than what he said (which doesn't actually bother me at all) - if you said it, Brown, that's what think, so have the courage to stand by your opinion. It's not as if you're unwilling to stand by a lot of other unpopular things.


Regards

Robin

Pat Mills said at the recent talk he held in Colchester that he had ask Matt if it was possible to reprint the Inspector Ryan story from Crisis & was told by 2000ad that they couldn't do this as rebellion did not own the rights to any of the stories written for Crisis or Revolver comics  & that Egmont still owned their rights

Not sure if this old thread sheds any light or not (Byron Virgo's post in particular):

http://www.2000adonline.com/forum/index.php/topic,12837.15.html

There are a few other threads in which it's mentioned that Ennis was given the rights to Troubled Souls in payment for Helter Skelter - perhaps it's a forum myth,  don't know.

I'd be interested in hearing Rebellion tell us what the situation actually is.


Regards

Robin

Starlord & Tornado were merged into 2000AD so became part of 2000ad, whilst Crisis was a stand alone comic & never mergedso is still owned by Egmont. Finn was also a stand alone story that featured people from another story but was sold to 2000ad as a seperate story, on the same lines that Dicks is a seperate comic owned by the creators, using charectors originally from the troubled souls stories in Crisis.

If Rebellion don't own Crisis, then how was Garth Ennis able to get the rights to Troubled Souls (and hence the characters he wanted for Dicks) in return for writing Helter Skelter for 2000AD?

Regards

Robin

Great idea - how about "America"?

I think it's the one to go for. It's good enough to generate at least some casual interest from people who don't read 2000AD, and the three collected stories work pretty well as a complete piece of work (Halo Jones, while good, is frustratingly incomplete).

Regards

Robin

["We were troublemakers and that the other publishers did not mind missing product".]

Rather a lot of waffle there, but this caught my pedantic eye...

During the entire process Diamond management treated Checker in a heavy handed almost thug-like nature.  We were told that: 

"We were troublemakers and that the other publishers did not mind missing product". 

...This is something that we found puzzling assertion as every publisher in the trade catalog  PREVIEWS has a legal obligation to creators, shareholders, investors, licensing partners, and employees to act with due diligence if their product sales show such substantial irregularities as Checker BPG. Based on initial indications we feel other suppliers simply are not aware of the potential inventory problems. 

Further it was stated by Diamond management: "If we did not like it we could leave-"   


Those lines in quotes are interesting. If you put something in quotes like that you are saying that's precisely what was said. However, note the use of 'we'. If these are direct quotes from Diamond's management to Checkers, wouldn't they have used 'you' instead? The tense is also wrong. To be credible as something that was actually said, that last quote should read:

If you don't like it you can leave it

Pedantic, sure, but when you quote someone, you quote accurately. This sort of thing makes me distrust what I'm reading (not that I know anything about the situation).


Regards

Robin

Why can't we all have our own little local governments on the village/town or county level with Westminster there entirely for national co-ordination? It would be magnificently chaotic and uneven, but truly democratic. Local laws for local people.

Okay, so who is going to decide which little community we each get to live in? What if too many people want to live in one place? What if large numbers of old people go and retire to East Anglia, but nobody is working there; are the taxes from hard working Londoners or the industrious Scots going to be directed towards the massively increased healthcare needs of that region? When folks from Texting-While-Driving-Is-Fine are caught using their phones driving through Mobiles-Kill, are they tried in Texting-Is-Fine or Mobiles-Kill? While awaiting trial for murder, which region's prison are they kept in, and who foots the bill? This isn't just a can of worms, it's New Improved Wormo, with added Wriggle.

Things are difficult and badly coordinated as it is without even more fragmentation.

Regards

Robin

I never said that money should be given to the private sector. The implication being that public sector R&D and commercialisation of results is funded and supported in order to offset the activities of the private.

Fair enough. I just lack your vision.

Most would say my naivety - I expect it would be much harder and more complex than I hope.

I don't hear much from any political party about setting up new state-owned commercial enterprises. I think politicians on the the whole tend to see that as not being the role of government these days.

Let's face it, it would be a costly can of worms, and I can see why governments and would-be-governments steer clear of it. However, I'd really like to see some genuine Big Ideas for our countries that are properly planned and properly explained to the electorate. Most policy and argument is vague waffle about fairness, reducing waste, and so forth, or designed to appeal to our fears, prejudices and general ignorance.


Regards

Robin

I dont think any public money should be given to the private sector in principle because they wont see a return on it and i expect the private sector to fund itself.

I never said that money should be given to the private sector. I said:

Sadly, most research is driven by the commercial sector, and as a result it gets the rights to exploit it. The only way to mitigate this is for public money to be put into scientfic and technological research, with a view to developing new industries that are going to provide jobs and produce beneficial products.

the implication being that public sector R&D and commercialisation of results is funded and supported in order to offset the activities of the private.


Regards

Robin

Public investment comes in the form of grants and technology park facilities to get things started, but it's big business that stands to reap the commercial dividends.

Yes, so you make sure the companies you set up and fun are public sector companies.

Regards

Robin

I'd never vote for the Greens, because I'm not anti-nuclear power and I'm strongly pro-GM technology.

Are you so keen on nuclear power that you wouldn't vote Green, because you couldn't guard against the possibility that having just two or three Green MPs in the House would be enough to stop a nuclear power station being built?

I'm not especially keen on nuclear power, I'm just not anti- it. It's the anti-technology angle that concerns me. The Greens are in favour to renewable technologies, of couse, but generally I don't trust them.

I am interested to know more about your enthusiasm for genetic modification. I'm not exactly horrified by it myself, but it seems to me any advantages it has to offer are purely commercial, whereas there are far greater potential human benefits to be had from social, political and economic reform than from the technological fix.

The commercial sector will exploit anything it can get its grubby little mitts on, even, I suspect, social, political and economic reforms. We just have to aim to curb its excesses and support what's good.

Sadly, most research is driven by the commercial sector, and as a result it gets the rights to exploit it. The only way to mitigate this is for public money to be put into scientfic and technological research, with a view to developing new industries that are going to provide jobs and produce beneficial products.

Regards

Robin

Why is the result laughable? I'd never vote for the Greens, because I'm not anti-nuclear power and I'm strongly pro-GM technology.

But do those two beliefs determine your vote ahead of issues such as the economy, policing, education, foreign affairs, etc?  The Greens offer the best overall package of policies (to my mind and, it seems, to yours): inevitably you'll not agree with all of them.

Remember that I also said:

Also, I had to choose the lesser evil in every case - there was nothing I could subscribe to with any enthusiasm, and I've forgotten what I voted for already.


Regards

Robin

I've just gone through Vote for Policies, and frankly the experience was somewhat depressing. In every case there was a total lack of practical detail. Also, I had to choose the lesser evil in every case - there was nothing I could subscribe to with any enthusiasm, and I've forgotten what I voted for already. As someone who works in the NHS, the health policies made particularly grim reading - none of them have a fucking clue.

The laughable result was 77.78% to the Greens, 11.11% to the Lib Dems (Democracy), 11.11% to the Conservatives (Education).

Why is the result laughable? I'd never vote for the Greens, because I'm not anti-nuclear power and I'm strongly pro-GM technology.


Regards

Robin

Following Farewell my Billions it contains Winnegan's Fake, Metrobolis, War of the Noses (Hogan/Hughes), Something for the Weekend, Sir? (Smith/Weston), Slade Runner (Hogan/Hughes) and Fax and Deductions (Hogan/Jacob).

That's a remarkably pleasant surprise.

Regards

Robin

This is what governments are for, to allow us all to live as closely to our own needs, beliefs and desires as possible and not, not ever, to tell us how to live beyond one or two widely accepted expectations such as not murdering or raping one another and suchlike.

I have a much more cynical view of humans and history, and I think part of a government's job is to protect individuals and societies from our own worst traits, such as our ignorance, selfishness and outright stupidity. Obviously, being composed largely of humans, governments are capable of the same behaviour at times, but that's why elections are not a bad thing every now and again.

Inevitably, every government is going to do some things that some of us don't agree with, but we have to make a distinction between serious issues and inconveniences.

It's also important to recognise that while any of us can argue hypothetically over the rights and wrongs any issue under the sun, governments and politicians actually have to make some real, practical decisions. We have to hope, and demand, that they make decisions based on facts and often harsh realities, rather than political ideology, greed and selfishness. I think those three latter issues are the root causes of most of our problems.

Regards

Robin