Of course there are spongers, and the system gets it wrong. I read recently about the problems of the NHS - with so much more money under Labour, how is it still failing to deliver? - and part of the problem is that expectations have increased. Where once you got hospital food, now you require a menu, TV and a 'phone, and you'll still sue if the nurses are too tired to smile. Plus of course technical progress means there are expensive treatments now available which didn't exist twenty years ago - but have to be paid for.

The principle of the welfare state is that the unfortunate should be helped to survive until they can get back on their feet. Clearly when it supports idle and comfortable lifestyles more attractive than work, it's getting it wrong; but that doesn't mean the whole system should be abandoned. JB's implication that the luckless should be left to starve is intolerable in a humane society.

IMP.

Ian I do agree with the idea of a safety net but I see no reason for it to be a feather bed for the feckless and lazy.

I believe that's what I said. And I think Joe was joking, and I agree with him if he was. Thatcher believed we all needed a kick up the arse, and she certainly gave us a kicking. Even more than twenty years later, I still can hardly believe that "trickle-down economics" (Make the rich richer, and everything will work out okay) was actually a policy.

IMP.

im a nurse in the NHS, and have been for the last 20 years.

the NHS is in a terrible state, the money ploughed into the NHS went to PFI iniitatives,ridiculous GP and Consultant wage rises, their pay rises were more than my annual salary.

there are now 2.5 managers and admin staff to every 1 nurse in service.

i dread the day when i have to make use of the NHS for myself.

i could go on and on, but its too depressing.

'Personally, I think Moore is very over rated and that many fans,creators,and critics give him a pass (and often praise him) for doing crappy work simply becuse he is Alan Moore. I still say that Barbra (sp) Gordon would still be walking and being Batgirl if she was not crippled in the KILLING JOKE. I believe (and I could be wrong) that there are a number of editors and creators out there who are afraid to retcon/reverse anything that Moore has done to a DC or Marvel character in the past. The worship and butt kissing of Moore has gotten so bad and rediculous that a few years ago Marvel editor Axel Alonso called Moore up to ask him for his permission to use Captain Britain and the charactrs Moore co-created durring his run on that series with Alan Davis, for a proposed Captain Britain comic. Excuse me, Moore did not create Captain Britain, and the last time I checked he does'nt own any of the characters he co-created for Marvel. I have to wonder if Alonso would have taken the time to call creators living here in America to ask them for their permission to use characters that they created. "

I'm not sure I get this. You're saying that Barbara Gordon's crippling is still in effect because Moore's work altered the character forever. I don't think there's ever been in a case in any medium using characters owned by major companies like DC, whether TV, movies or novels, that the company will not change. Kojak turns black. Nick Fury turns black. Starbuck turns female. Lois Lane goes from her mid-30s to her early 20s in a sequel. X-Men stop wearing costumes. Are you seriously suggesting the comics world thinks so much of Moore that they would not have Barbara Gordon healed by magic or whatever and simply remove the fact of it? I think Gordon's crippling might be seen as a watershed moment, like the Question getting shot in the head and becoming a kung fu man. The company must have felt more could be done with Gordon as she is. Maybe too there's the whole idea that the Huntress took the role Gordon once inhabited, and with Black Canary already running around, that's a lot of femme fatales in tights who basically do the "Batman". The cripple angle must be good for the kind of story-telling the company wanted done, that's all. Either it's shockingly simple to give Gordon her legs back or DC prefers writers work the angle. But I seriously doubt it's because Moore is such a God that no one will alter his work.

And the whole Captain Britain thing seems a bit overstated. Maybe that editor was one of those PC touchy feely types who wanted to get on Moore's side. I doubt Moore was approached for permission to use Captain Britain specifically, when it's pointed out that the secondary characters Moore created is actually the real reason. As CB had reached some popularity at the time, and a bunch of continuity was put in place, the work that Moore had done was something this editor wanted to kickstart with other creators. Going to Moore to use his "version" of the character and the universe he put together for that character makes sense to me. That's not ass-kissing, that's making sure a name brand guy (at the time) like Moore doesn't rant and rail and create bad press. Of course, why the editor just didn't do what he wanted and simply disregard Moore's contributions doesn't make sense either, considering it isn't necessary for "continuity" with a character like CB who had a blip of popularity for a time, in America at least.

Anyway, I fail to see what Moore has done to directly draw the kind of ire he has. No, he's not Steve Englehart or John Byrne or Roger Stern, producing no-frills good comics anyone could read. That's not in his language to do that, and a shame to boot. You can rightly blame him for the dark turn comics have taken, but Frank Miller needs to catch some flak for that as well. I mean, Miller's Batman (and I love DKR) has alienated the fan base of the character for anyone who read him before 1988 or so. Moore may have created an atmosphere, but Miller evolved the one-celled organisms in the muck. Punisher, Deathstroke, Deadshot, Wolverine, all great characters and all with direct lineage to Miller's style choice which forever changed how "violent" characters were shown, leading to the Dark Age as it should be called, the 90s. The 90s stemmed a horde from Miller more than Moore, who was much too romantic and flightly for the fanboy pop, I believe.

Personally, I prefer a real division in my comics. Give me the hardcore stuff in its own creepy hardcore world, like Conan and TOMB OF DRACULA used to be in the 70s. Then give me the adventure stuff and superheroics of FF and JLA and Avengers that any kid could pick up, and which reminds me of when I was young and the whole world was in front of me. Everyone has forgotten how to just relegate stuff where it is supposed to be and let the division be firm. SAGA OF THE SWAMP THING had the great "Suggested for Mature Readers" label. There you go, plain as day, what you're getting. Nowadays you never know what's going to happen, beheadings by Wonder Woman, surgical nuturing by Reed Richards, Thor with VD, there's no end to it.

Chad, your post is articulate and plausible.

I got a bit sidetracked by the Britain stuff, but Miracleman, Swamp Thing, Captain Britain, Watchmen, DKR, Ronin, Born Again, Year One are all great comics. They just are. That a load of inferior writers and editors tried to copy them and do nothing else for a long time can hardly be blamed on those creators.

IMP.

Ian,yes there will always be spongers,and i agree that we shouldn`t let the unfortunate starve,but it is increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice to live off the state ie you and me the worker.If they were made to work to earn their benefits or forfeit them it would be a start. The work could be local community stuff like litter collection or gardening for the elderly etc.

I can't see an ethical problem with that. Practically, the spongers will develop difficult-to-diagnose back problems...

It would be helpful to see a cultural attitude change, too, through those influencing authorities, TV and the popular Press, away from resenting taxation and believing that anything stolen back is a moral victory. From each according to his means... I'm not talking about manipulation or a controlled Press, I'm talking about responsible journalism. Because what we have now is irresponsible journalism.

IMP.