En Passant

If only these people not on the list would just stop dying.

Crowe.

It's tempting to say unbelieveable. The sad truth is, it isn't.

Parkinson was a shitpot, the fact that Savile was a bigger shitpot in sexual predation terms doesn't absolve Parkinson in any way. Sorry, I'm with Willz, I simply cannot rustle up anything approaching sympathy :S. Edit to add: I hear you Shaun really i do, but he wasn't just Joe Blow the plumber, he had the audacitiy to sit in high office and pontificate about how others should behave.....

Neither way of appointing a head of state assures that the appointed one is any good. In most modern monarchies and republics of the German and Italian model that doesn't matter much, since the job holds no political power, but in other cases it does. I rather like the idea that you get to vote away an unsatisfactory one, rather than wait till he/she/it dies or gets bumped. In the uk at least, the concern for those wishing for a little more equality is perhaps not so much the individuals concerned or the power they wield (none of any consequence), as the continuance of a figurehead for a system that should have been given the boot a long while back. It's the top of a class system that has no place in a modern democracy, and whilst the monarchy still exists we can never truly get rid of the idea of class. Possibly this doesn't apply to other countries as readily as it does here, i couldn't honestly say.

As ever, there are arguments on both sides. Having an elected head of state isn't a panacea either. Whilst the principle that anyone can become head of state is entirely laudable and in my view is the very minimum a society that views itself as democratic should aspire to, you could take the example of the US (chosen because most have a reasonable idea of its constitution) where the president is in theory, just that. It could be anyone.... However... In practice of course you only need to look at the net worth of most of the people who have become president (or are aiming to do so, yes, you, Trump) to see the difference between the theory and the reality. Exchanging direct right of birth for right of birth via being born extremely wealthy (most don't make it to be a billionaire from a standing start, despite the few examples that are forever paraded when this comes up) isn't perhaps the massive leap forward toward egalitarianism that we might wish. At the end of the day though, to me at any rate, it's the principle that matters. The idea that one should doff one's cap to another because they had the right parents, and you did not, I find offensive. Right, here's a picture of a cat playing in the snow...

Bitter Lake on bbc iplayer. Weirdly done in some ways but interesting and in some areas educating. At least this stuff can still get an airing.

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho. I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities. Some don't think she should head even that. Not that the old girl hasn't done a stirling job, but the very business of having an unelected head of state from a right of birth family is seen by many as perpetuating the absurd class system, which in this time of ever increasing disparity between the have's and the have nots is increasingly divisive. Up the workers!

Have you tried using your iPhone yet? I fear i must be missing something here, but ive not seen this particular application of an iphone heavily promoted.

oh for sure, completely agree on that one. as sc points out (and others doubtless have previously) they should only count if its natural causes whilst on death row.

You seriously expect this statement to go unchallenged? The death penalty != justice. Any punishment may in one persons eyes be insufficient or conversely in anothers eyes too draconian. It is not a binary choice on any level and particularly with respect to what is considered the ultimate penalty. Simply stating that the death penalty is justice is an oversimplification of massive proportions. And anyway many executions are often delayed beyond the date set, so there is always an element of doubt about any actual date until it's been done.

28th Feb. Male Robert Christopher Nesbitt Murray.

And with a name like that, who could possibly suspect some kind of hoax. :S

I took my wife to the doctors this morning to see if anything could be done about her tourettes syndrome. Turns out she doesn't have it, I truly am a cunt, and she really does want me to fuck off.

He's a smeeeeg heeeeead! Ah well that's my favourite use of it anyway. Wonder if toastie the toaster was a smeg....

Hopeless at deadlines, but hopefully haven't messed this one up. The Bee of the Gees. Al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Gascoigne, Paul Ford, Rob Day, Doris Van Dyke, Dick Berry, Chuck Carter, Jimmy Bush, George H.W. Philip, Prince Lewis, Jerry Kilmer, Val Kissinger, Henry Banks, Gordon Fawkes, Helen Aherne, Caroline Harris, Rolf Forsyth, Bruce Mubarak, Hosni Reagan, Nancy Ali, Muhammad Castro, Fidel Scales, Prunella Van Der Westhuizen, Joost Hawking, Stephen James, Clive

If you don't like toast, isn't it a tiny bit optimistic to expect "new improved timed to the second toast" to massively alter your opinion? Personally I love the stuff, can't get enough of it.

Ouch.

Oh, I agree completely. It was just that you were blaming Bob, when I doubt he had much say in it. In this case the girls seem to be OK with their names, at least none of them have publicly rejected them. And Peaches continued the wackiness by naming her children Astala Dylan Willow and Phaedra Bloom Forever. Which wouldn't be too bad if the poor kids were girls. But they're boys! Well, I do sort of blame Bob, one parent being barking simply puts more responsibility on the other (and he chose to marry her, the kids were blameless in this also). And, if he didn't have much say in it, he should have; as I alluded earlier, he's never been shy about coming forward on any other topic. But in the great scheme of things sure, he's a good guy in my view also, so we do agree on that. As to it not bothering the kids, well, it's hard to say, names are strange things and I suppose you get sort of attached to it whatever it may be, particularly if you've had it for umpteen years before you are old enough to really think about it. Continuing the wackiness? Well it's the same with child abuse of other kinds is it not? The abuser was likely abused themselves? (and whilst that is not really a subject about which to be tongue in cheek... I just have it seems).

How about Moxie Crimefighter? Nah, that ones fine, I know at least 3 of them along my street alone* *Actually I quite like Penn Jillette, but lets face it the man must have been damaged in this regard in the first place

Well my concern is about the child, innocent of any crime, getting lumbered with such a moniker. The fact that Paula or whomever went through the labours (pun partly intentional), of er "producing" the child doesn't in my eyes absolve them of the requirement to behave responsibly in the naming process. In my view they name them something wacky because of their own ego, which has nothing to do with the child at all, but it's the child that has to live with it. "Oh lets call her Fifi Trixibelle". Er no, don't. Likewise: Zowie, Heavenly Hirana Tiger Lily, Apple, Memphis Eve, Maddox etc etc. Or indeed...Thatcher.

Oh I'm absolutely certain it was mostly her, but naming is a two parent game, are you saying that bob wasn't, cough, a forthright enough man, cough, to have had an input? At the end of the day maybe its just me (and no, my name is not Sue),