he would have taken the 7 years training to become a doctor, spent decades getting the necessary surgical experience, spent hundreds of thousands on kitting out an operating theatre, the thousands to pay for the necessary support staff (theatre nurses, anaesthatists etc), paid out the thousands for surgical equipment, paid out the thousands drugs it would be illegal for him to posses and illegal for him to prescribe to a family member, and performed the surgery, aftercare, and palliative care. And he would have done this in a matter of weeks whilst holding down a job to pay for it all.

Strivers versus skivers innit.

All that if he was around at the time of course...

That was Galloway telling Saddam that the Western democracies were hell-bent on killing hundreds of thousands of his countries innocent citizens.

Guess what?

It doesn't - sadly the majority of the shop owners didn't have enough about them to compete that is the really sad aspect. As you keep saying supermarket fresh food is dire - an easy opportunity for any good butcher/baker/fruit and veg seller to exploit - the fact they didn't is not the fault of the supermarket - lazy/spineless/incompetent - those that have taken up the challenge have prospered.

What it shows is a competitive market gets rid of the crap and only the strong survive. Morrisons started as one shop - M&S started as a market stall - it shows what is possible if you have the ability and the drive to succeed.

And the surgery needed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -etiquette Good article on the "misplaced death etiquette" and the problems it can cause when applied to controversial political figures

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -etiquette Good article on the "misplaced death etiquette" and the problems it can cause when applied to controversial political figures

All in an age where there wasn't some giant retailers undercutting them until they went out of business, you really think they would survive in the current market?

True but planning regulations have an awful lot to do with it and if more thought had gone into where supermarkets were allowed to build it could well have saved hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs.

Some extraordinary venom on this thread. It's like Lord of The Flies. Ordinary intellectuals reduced to frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. Brilliant.

God bless Maggie. May angels rain down feathers and sunshine upon her face.

Sorry but that's a simplistic view.

It only takes a shift of 30% of trade from the independent to the supermarket to finish off the independent shop because that's his margin wiped out.
So, whilst potentially 70% of shoppers in a locale (let's just say a majority) might prefer the small independents, even if they stay loyal the independents still go bust.

No supermarket has an absolute monopoly but the power intrinsic in their sheer size means they have the same advantage over an independent as if they did have a monopoly.
Virtually the only ones who can compete in those circumstances are other supermarket chains ... and starting a supermarket chain from small beginnings these days is well-nigh impossible.

M&S started in 1884, Morrison's in 1889 ... they'd have no chance of the same growth if they were starting out now.