主播大秀

Nice of newsnight to advertise Robert Peston's book...

I hope Peston's book never makes it an audio version ..puleeze not

Hi Newsnight

my thought on post 1 is that no nation is intrinsically better or worse than another,

for example some citizens of some countries are seen as models for the rest of us but their parents may have being monsters,

some migrants are said to make better workers than people born here, but all this depends of a persons culture, on their education etc,

the next generation here could be completely different, better or worse than todays generation,

in even the worst most violent societies there are many decent people, and similarly in largely machetee free streets there are vile people of different colours,

I put this on the blog before but i view the person with the same values as myself and respect for others, and who shows kindness and compassion and helps the weak and vulnerable as my brothers and sisters,
colour or religion doesn't come into it, its how you treat others,

nationality in itself to me is meaningless. My late father an RAF officer saw the horrors of Belsen with Jewish and other people who they could not save, and the retribution meeted out to german cilvians who had not committed crimes,

forget nationality and flag waving, treat people with respect and by the way they treat others,
best wishes
Bob

BELIEFS

Bob (#5) Admirable remarks, but do you believe that all dogs (or horses, or cows) are the same? Take Labradors and Pit Bulls - do you believe that one generation of pit-bulls is likely to be completely different from the next?

We all have beliefs, many of which are false. That's the problem with the whole notion of 'belief' (and its kindred). As an example, consider Belsen. What if the RAF and USAF were largely responsible for the typhus outbreaks at Belsen due to their very effective carpet bombing of supply lines throughout Germany? The Belsen liberators may well have wanted to save people when they saw the consequences...but...(sins of omission are much harder to spot).

We know that gene much of what we are (and therefore how we behave is largely the expression of the genes we inherit, and we know that gene barriers (physical barriers like oceans, mountains etc) have, over hundreds of thousands of years, led to subtle genomic diversity (just as it has for groups dogs, horses, cows etc). So, given that assortive mating (like with like) is universal, why do so many of us 'believe' that the forces (social and physical) which have led to group/family differences are likely to disappear in just a generation or two?

May the answer be that many (most) of us don't know as much as we think we do, and that we don't spend much time questioning our assumptions?

I would like to see a feature on carers, and the support they provide. They are reimbursed through an unjust system of a myriad of means tested benefits. The thrifty should be just as eligible for rewards of their efforts as the squanderers. These benefits should be awarded through grants to reward effort, and not be based on assets made from working hard. Means testing of benefits should not be a substitute for raising taxes on the rich.

I would like to see a feature on carers, and the support they provide. They are reimbursed through an unjust system of a myriad of means tested benefits. The thrifty should be just as eligible for rewards of their efforts as the squanderers. These benefits should be awarded through grants to reward effort, and not be based on assets made from working hard. Means testing of benefits should not be a substitute for raising taxes on the rich.