Impartiality does not mean blindly reciting the viewpoints of opposing sides in any debate (something the BBC are already wont to do).

So in short, your view is it would have been best to stand by and watch as Jews were loaded into the ovens?

Your point being?

Start with Aquinas and work forwards to six million Jews. Hell, take in Sophie Scholl on the way. Then come back here and try again.

Mmm. I don't doubt there is a lot of nasty stuff to come out still, but frankly at the moment a lot of the people talking about it are pretty closely connected to people who think we are run by lizards. A bit of rationality would help.

Care to cite statute and case law for that?

No-one is interested in putting a pundit on screen who thinks it's a done deal.

And what makes you think Americans will? You're proposing to replace representative democracy with government by the idle.

Presumably once we finally forget what a mess Athenian democracy was.

Dude, they're electing the leader of the free world. Taking an interest is not unreasonable.

It may have been unwise, but it certainly was not wrong. Stealing is wrong. Trusting strangers not to steal your stuff is unwise, but not wrong.

Didn't realise it was that early. But yes, outside the smoke free zones you can still buy it freely. I burnt it up until 2006 when I moved.

Well, not till the seventies (ish) and then only in towns. We still burn whatever we like in the country.

Re your last sentence, the problem is not that insurance is regulated, it's the reverse. If people couldn't get insurance for areas that are guaranteed to flood or get blown over regularly, they might think twice about living there. Instead, the government compels insurers to cover them anyway.

Hi, the internet called and wants you to know it's really unhappy about being confused with the World Wide Web.