Good news!

As another commenter mentions above, workers are legally entitled to a day off a week, and it is not allowed to compel people to work Sundays. Moreover, offices or factories are allowed to open on Sundays - this wouldn't be a new break for society, just a removal of an unfair restriction on retail. Anyone is free to choose not to work on a Sunday, of course - no-one makes you sign a contract or pick a particular job.

Does that outweigh the harm done to family life by a moribund economy and a lack of work, Martin?

I certainly didn't attempt to use the description "religious" as a rebuttal, Dominic - I used it only as the relevant description of the argument! I'm not a Richard Dawkins crusading atheist...

There are two changes I'd propose Gillian. a) shift almost all warranted police officers out of the back office onto front line policing duty. b) replace essential back office jobs with civilian staff, then scrap non-essential jobs. Some pen=pushing is essential as you say but almost none of it should be done by police officers.

Not necessarily, Tim - so far the Police Federation have insisted that almost all police force jobs must be done by fully warranted, trained officers with powers of arrest. That has led to large numbers doing secretariat jobs that are a waste of their talent, training, expertise and pay. If those back-office jobs that are essential were transferred to civilian staff, whilst others were simply scrapped outright, then you could cut the number of police officers but put a greater number out on the beat catching criminals.

Kipple drives out non-kipple, Edward!

That would be a lovely Britain, wouldn't it Essexboy? A land where police officers smack people in the face for insisting they operate within the law. By the way, I don't know if you read the above piece but it wasn't me - as is made clear!

I don't allege conspiracy, but a cultural and training problem that exists far too widely in the police. This has happened far too often. As for the question of whether this is just one rogue officer, I should have added that several other officers were present including a Police Inspector, none of whom made any attempt to stop the "idiot" in question.

Not as desperate as holding it up as a sad loss...

Lauren, in that case will she be complaining to the Press Complaints Commission and/or suing?

The magistrate is also charged with using language the defendants understand, though, corporeal. If he'd called them barbarian bashi-bazouks it would have been unlikely to be absorbed....

How about The Coalition?

Graeme, we're funded by several thousand individuals who donate to us voluntarily. We would love to write on LabourHome, too, but sadly they haven't invited us as yet! That said we've appeared regularly in the Guardian's Comment is Free section. As for being partisan, we invited all the candidates from every main party to join us at Debt Clock events from around the country. That was taken up by several Tories but also by Lib Dems, UKIP candidates and independents. Sadly no Labour PPCs took up the offer. Getting back to the issue, are you comfortable with the size of the national debt?

You're absolutely right about the need to win a mandate rather than just a majority in order to make cuts. One thing to be wary of, though, is those claims from the 2020 Public Services Trust - see this blog post about the failings in their methodology and overstatement of their findings: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2010/04/poll-dancing-dubious-claims-from-the-2020-public-services-trust.html

Name and shame!

Tod, seeing as I represent the TaxPayers' Alliance, not the Tories, and we don't stand for election I'm not making any election pledges at all! Two points: 1) Yes, I believe public sector transport costs can and must be sizeably reduced. 2) My point is that the site is a sad reflection on the huge scale of the public sector transport industry! Ironically, taxpayers are paying even more for subscriptions to this magazine...

Now you've asked the question about ASH, it does seem the author of the report Henry Featherstone is close enough to ASH to attend their AGM: "At ASH AGM last night. Smoking still bad for inequality...something must be done..." http://twitter.com/henryfeathers/status/6560827465

I went up to supervisor level, Tanuki - sadly I had to get to the event I was speaking at so no time for legal niceties!

Never fear David - this is just the start of making a real fuss!

I did indeed Martin - it was handy content for the speech.

It is not the role of the helpline to decide on its own what it thinks is best for the caller, and then to violate their privacy. "I'm doing this for your own good" is itself the mantra of Big Brother...

A dramatic exaggeration, but still applicable - the point is that someone suffering severe workplace bullying is naturally going to be worried by the possibility of their call not being kept totally confidential. There will be people out there today who need support but who will now not call anyone as a result of Ms Pratt's actions.

The point of these phone lines is not to intervene on your behalf, it is to listen to you, provide a supportive voice and to give you advice. Would anyone phone Alcoholics Anonymous if they then rang up your wife and said "lock the spirits cabinet, he's a total lush"?

As I mention in my post, I certainly am concerned by the bullying itself. However, Ms Pratt has now removed one of the few safety nets for other victims of bullying.