I disagree. Diana's face had always sold mags and papers by the million, such is peoples' insatiable appetite for banal trivia and celebrity, but after she died the papers just jumped on the mourning bandwagon and shamelessly milked it. The ridiculous outbursts of mass grief and hysteria were indeed a mystery to the sane, but were spontaneous and not created by the media.

The new General needs to get some weight of the fat little Fu*ker.

To be honest, at the end of the day that is such a cr@p phrase.

Oh. Your valuable input is duly noted.

You're right, but what's Solomona got to do with the thread?

And in an almost comedic article, that doyen of insightful thought, Christina Patterson, suggests: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-if-you-dont-like-capitalism-why-not-try-north-korea-6279781.htmlIf you don't like capitalism, try North Korea[/url

That really is p*ss poor.

If you're ever stuck for any comedy material, it's always worth a trawl back through her previous articles. I can only assume she's nobbing Lebedev

Ah, I remember the days when the Indie was a half-decent paper.

Mind you, there was an article by Norman Lamont in last week's [iNew Statesman[/i.
I guess it's all in the interests of "balance".
i.e. In among items from those who can think or write or both, you slip in a an article by someone who can do neither.

For the most part it still is a half-decent paper and one of the few that does still offer a range of opinions, from the likes of diverse commentators such as: Dominic Lawson, Brute Anderson, Rober Fisk etc. Quite why they allow Christina Patterson to stray from her comfort zone of poetry is totally beyond me

Was that deliberate?
Since .......

Ask tb