To be fair, Hasan does have cause to feel unduly singled out when so many of his stablemates at the New Statesman don't profess a religion at all, and still manage to talk complete bollocks without one.

Dawkins draws ire from just about every section of the commentariat that is opposed to rational thought, with many "feminists" (not, of course, that they're in any rush to support the likes of Amina in Tunisia- they have more important concerns, such as self-absorbed shite about "privilige", to mouth off about) having a particular hatred for him.

You could try "Britain under Thatcher" by Anthony Seldon and Daniel Collings, that seems like the kind of impartial analysis you're after.

An interesting point is touched upon here, which is that money earned in the first world is often sent home to families, and actually does a great deal of good when it arrives, probably more so than your average aid programme. And the reason they are here is to take advantage of opportunities that are non-existant at home, but their own countries are starting to prosper to an extent that even a decade ago would have been seen as outlandish if anyone had suggested it.

I've known people express outrage that "we" are taking "their" doctors, engineers, etc. But if those countries can't employ all the professionals they have, a huge problem in mich of the world, it's hard to envisage what such people are meant to do given that they currently can't work in their home countries.

I don't support open borders because I don't think it's feasible that Britain can take on every last would-be immigrant, but these things are worth thinking about.

I know several people who are almost impossible to imagine working (though they are actually a minority of the unemployed, most of whom are just unlucky). More importantly, I honestly believe this country has been living beyond its means for years, which is why I fundamentally never accepted the "prosperity" of the "boom" years: hence, I don't blame the coalition for stagnating GDP or high unemployment and I certainly don't accept that Labour can improve the situation.

At the same time, I don't take an especially punitive line on welfare because I honestly don't see how it's meant to add up. The previous government left a quagmire of means-tested benefits, many of them never claimed, filled with perverse incentives and I really scratch my head at how so many people (especially on the right) can demand more means testing, as if it hadn't already been proven to be a huge failure.

I won't bore my fellow heretics with what exactly I propose for our welfare state, but suffice to say I scratch my head when I hear people who are nigh-on unemployable cheer on populist shite like this. They actually seem to think that if asylum seekers were made even worse off than themselves, they'd become better off, because "we" would have more to spend on "our own people". It's never occurred to them that the sort of government that does things to spite brown people in order to get votes might go on to spite them in order to get votes. The strangest thing is that the concept of "you're next" doesn't seem to cross the minds of low-paid workers or native-born unemployed.

I've heard a lot of talk from a lot of libertarians on Twitter about privatising marriage, but most of it was very glib. I actually asked for practical details of how one would go about getting the state out of marriage.
http://dry-valleys.tumblr.com/post/42287015267/li...

That didn't yield a satisfactory response, but I think enacting these proposalls would do it. Unfortunately, as has been said, there isn't the political will to do it. Had I been in Parliament I would have voted for the bill on Tuesday as the best aavailable option.

Against my better judgment, I have been having this argument with the usual antisemites (yes, that's what these particular people are) who don't see that the problem isn't criticism of Israel, but the specific language used, as though "the Jews" were all the same and all responsible for what the state of Israel does.

The best refutation of this is the free and fair elections Israel holds, the most recent of which was a week or so ago and resulted in a decisive shift towards the centre and away from warlike and pro-settlement parties. None of the anti-"Zionists" has given the slightest acknowledgement of this. Why?

No, it's a reference to those of a higher rank than him in the police. Why take it as a reference to yourself, are YOU Mark Kennedy?

And now we've got our professional complainers about the coalition, complaining about cuts to the police! My first thought is that the "work" of people like this could be abolished altogether, and we'd be better off for it. But my second thought is it's the good work that gets cut, never the securocracy and its excesses.

Rest assured that you're not the only one who is horrified by stories like this, I have been since the day I heard about it.

Unless they lobbied for Europe-wide regulation, just to make matters even worse.

Mind you, it could be interesting if manufacturers pre-emptively invented low-sugar versions of their existing products. Let the market decide which one becomes big.

I'm reminded of the 1.1% ale, which readers with long memories may recall. http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article/153

A mate of mine considered getting bladdered on it, but decided against the idea.

Frosties are sold internationally. I don't know exactly, but presumably their exact nature differs from country to country according to local taste and regulation. If Burnham got his way, Frosties in their present form would presumably be banned and replaced with a low-sugar version. But the Irish would continue to eat the Frosties they've always eaten. I can't imagine it going so far as contraband high-sugar Frosties being smuggled in, but it's an interesting thing to note. What would the actually do if someone tried?

My brother has done some globe-trotting and says Thai "Red Bull" and "whisky", containing several substances banned here, really will give you wings. And it was this that came to mind upon thinking about the issue.