Dally has a point when he says the labour movement needs to re-invent itself. For years it has been but a pale shadow of the social behemoth that took the battle, literally and figuratively, to big capital over a century ago and won.

That said, we mustn't ignore the colossal forces arrayed against labour today and the near absolute power they wield. Take the media, for instance. Regardless of how weak labour is today in comparison to yesteryear it would be entirely wrong to say it is insignificant. Added together the total number of unionised employees in Britain is considerable. Yet it seems the only column inches/time slots afforded to labour in the newspapers or on the tv/radio exist to cover some "hardliner" conspiring with workers to make wholly unreasonable demands of employers - the loyalty, ethics, morals etc. of which are never questioned. Why are unions airbrushed from existence when all manner of fringe groups - such as the BNP, EDL - even the LibDems etc. are granted endless column inches?

When was the last time ANYONE saw a programme on mainstream TV which didn't lampoon, marginalise and/or vilify unions or union members? Which TV programs - fact or fiction - over the last twenty years have celebrated the achievements of unions - the bitter campaigns against corporate thugs, the bravery of its members etc.?

And in todays Police related news http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/10/thousands-999-police-axed-spending-cuts it would appear that figures released under Freedom of Information requests direct to all 43 police forces in England and Wales show that 5261 fewer "first responder" police officers (ie front-line staff) exist now compared to the period March 10 to Dec 11. Strangely though the figures which were verified by the House of Commons library and only contain complete data from 23 forces (so the figure could be higher), are dismissed out of hand by The Home Office who haughtily claim that "These are not official figures and we don't recognise them." Somebody is telling porkies I suspect, and I suspect that the Home Office "spokesman" who provided the anonymous quote for The Observer is probably a Conservative or LibDem MP desperately trying to back up Camerons statement from last month that the percentage of frontline officers was actually increasing. So, you request information from all 43 police forces and although not complete you see a substantial fall in numbers, but instead you choose to believe an anon source from within government that all is fine and rosy and the PM's promises still stand ? Which one is it for you ? And when did any Tory government turn its back on the police force ?

And in todays Police related news http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/10/thousands-999-police-axed-spending-cuts it would appear that figures released under Freedom of Information requests direct to all 43 police forces in England and Wales show that 5261 fewer "first responder" police officers (ie front-line staff) exist now compared to the period March 10 to Dec 11. Strangely though the figures which were verified by the House of Commons library and only contain complete data from 23 forces (so the figure could be higher), are dismissed out of hand by The Home Office who haughtily claim that "These are not official figures and we don't recognise them." Somebody is telling porkies I suspect, and I suspect that the Home Office "spokesman" who provided the anonymous quote for The Observer is probably a Conservative or LibDem MP desperately trying to back up Camerons statement from last month that the percentage of frontline officers was actually increasing. So, you request information from all 43 police forces and although not complete you see a substantial fall in numbers, but instead you choose to believe an anon source from within government that all is fine and rosy and the PM's promises still stand ? Which one is it for you ? And when did any Tory government turn its back on the police force ?

They'll blame the LibDems for that one

She learnt from the best.

And, as various researchers and commentators have indicated, swearing is actually a sign of intelligence. It is big and it is clever.

Yes, and people who don't swear are the ones with a limited vocabulary.

My mother, who's a nurse, says if you're not swearing creatively you're not swearing at all. We don't agree on much but we do agree on that.

That's the one. Let alone actually having the intelligence and imagination to invent new ways of swearing ...

I got a right knackering off some jizztingler for doing just that last week.

I whole-cuntedly agree.