You win big bucks...

So what do you do? Go public? Keep quiet? Buy a new missus? Move and not tell your family? Or do you give it away?

We talking those jammy bastards with £100mill...?

Stay private (enough folks with a grudge to bare so that wouldn't be for long..)

Make sure my nearest and dearest were taken care of for life...

Give some to charity and fuck off forever with the other £90mill.....

Yep those twts. After the last lot got sent into hiding this pair should have taken note and kept mum.

Me I'd keep quiet and enjoy it slowly after sorting out the family. I'd evict them first and then run aborad and get myself a toyboy ot 2.

In reality, the family would get some, charity another bit and I'd probably sue the NHS too.

Sue the NHS ?!?!

.tUrniP wrote:

Sue the NHS ?!?!

Why wouldn't you?

I just feel like it would compound the problem...

A lot needs to change, there's no doubt about that, but the NHS pays out millions a year in damages and some of that is to patient who have injured themselves of their own accord ( gone for a walk and fallen down stairs and such like ).

Of course I'm not trying to trivialise whatever grievance you have, I'm sure you're more than justified, but the legal action trend on the whole is one of many that seems akin to punching a hole in the hull of an already sinking ship in order to let the water out...

Since you wouldn't really need the money from the NHS anyway ( it's just the principal ) then why not spend the money battling policy or, better yet, the pharmaceutical companies; the things that are crippling the service and probably contributed to your inept doctors, poor conditions, lack of beds, etc

Ah ha! You presumed, that I'd sue for money. Nt that I'd sue in order to change the system to prevent whatever I was sueing occuring again.

I'd keep it quiet and fuck off with the wife and kids and no one would ever hear from me again....well maybe one or two people would.

My family could go and take a fuck to themselves.


I would also invest a certain amount of money and any profit made from it I would give to Erskine and Help 4 Heroes, that way I would be able to give to those charities regularly.

What about anti-war campaigns ?

Surely prevention is better than 'cure' and all that, or are we resigned to the idea that war is an eternal feature of humanity?

.tUrniP wrote:

What about anti-war campaigns ?

Surely prevention is better than 'cure' and all that, or are we resigned to the idea that war is an eternal feature of humanity?

what do the anti war campaigners want, what is the message or plan to prevent wars?
Is there way any better than the wars themselves?

While people join the armies etc, and kil on instructions from its leaders who get it from the Government leaders, wars will still occur.

People fear change, crave what others have, brainwashed by those who should know better such as religious groups etc. All those seeds can germinate into war. how do you steralise those seeds?

Well typically anti-war campaigners want less or no war ... beyond that it would be foolish to suggest that they necessarily share much at all. Conflict, being the creature it is, is not simple - you may be able to boil it down to some simple principles but - the multifaceted beast has, of course, spawned a multifaceted opposition and, as such, I can't really tell you what 'the anti war campaigners want' or if 'their* way [is] any better that wars themselves'.

I can try to tell you my ideas though, such as progressive unilateral disarmament starting with nuclear ... you've probably heard of CND or Mohandas Gandhi.

I have and I have worked in the nuclear industry.

Soyes you can share your opinons and thoughts, likewise anybody can.

However........... progressive disarmanent of the nuclear...? what bombs, energy?

How long do you think that will take?

A nuclear reactor is not something you switch off as you would do a switch. Then what are you going to do withthe material used/spent/radioactive/stored/waste etc?

As for the bombs, the same applies..you can stop production but what of those already in service? How are you going to remove the nuclear heart of these beasts?

Huge can of 7 headed worms this one subject alone is

Of course, not many things happen just like that but that doesn't negate it's value as a process ...

Even if we could decommission nuclear weapon production facilities/reactors right this second we would be left, as you've rightly said, with some radioactive waste that will probably remain dangerous for thousands of years ( maybe hundred(s) with transmutation ), that we can't handle ( save sticking it in a hole and hoping it decays before it resurfaces ) but these are problems that we already face from it's use ... it's only a matter of degree.

However, I believe that the biggest obstacle is mental rather than physical - whether it's just balls out megalomania or some other psychopathy it scares the crap out of me but it must be fixable ... maybe we gather the powers that be, sit them down with some rum and some skunk and just get them to chill the fuck out ( either that or a coup d'etat ... one or the other ).

I think the hibakusha alone are a good enough reason to try.

You've got ot overcome greed, financial clauses to both contracts and deals thats just the tip of the radioactive iceburg. And with what do you put in its place?


Radioactivity dimishes after 300 years.. That doesn;t mean its free, the level is dropped to a safe level. Don't forget most of the nautral earth is also radioactive. Granite is and sometimes that exceeds the set safe levels.

Yes, sorry, I didn't really mean danger from radioactivity ( I think the isotopes that are used are alpha emitters with ridiculously long half-lives ) only to imply that it should be properly considered.

My main concern was with the waste 'falling into the wrong hands' since it'll last ages; Don't quote me on this but I believe that Uranium235/6/8 ( I can't remember which and I think one of those is actually the common isotope that has to be enriched ) is/are usually used in reactors and each have a half-life in excess of a billion years. Plutonium239 ( again, I'm not sure ) which is used for bombs ( and is a by-product of reactors ) has a half-life of something like 20,000 years. Which, unless it's transmuted, would mean weapons grade ( or easily enriched ) material just lying about.

I don't really know about this stuff, I'll defer to you... Anyway...

I believe that the proposed Trident 'scheme' is predicted to cost in excess of £100billion - an amount that ( even using our overly inflated prices and rounding up population figures ) could feed the world for at least a couple of days, or the UK for about 10 months - how do you justify that kind of expenditure at all, let alone in the current economic climate.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we're in breach of the NPT. How dare 'we' govern global proliferation and hold ourselves to different standards?

I think in terms of replacements there is already a path - 'green' energy and better foreign policy.

Easy answer, I'd enjoy the comforts of the win.

What does that mean?