DaveR

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/how-to-make-a-permanent-residence-application/ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506058/EEA_PR__guide-to-supporting-documents_v1_3_2015-12-04_KP.pdf

"A spokesman for Corbyn later clarified that the Labour leader had in his speech been referring to states of an Islamic character, giving the examples of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza." Oh, that's all right then. If that's what he says he meant after he's caused a political firestorm, it must be true. We're not going to agree on this - suffice to say that equating Israel with murderous fanatical thugs is entirely consistent with Corbyn's stance on Israel for the last 30 years

"If I say that I don't hold individual members of the Labour party for Corbyn's mistakes, any more than I hold individual members of the Tory party responsible for Cameron's mistakes, does that mean I'm explicitly equating Corbyn with Cameron? No it doesn't." Yes, it does, and correctly, in two ways. Firstly it recognises their equivalent status i.e. as leaders of their respective parties, and the nature of those parties. Secondly, it doesn't differentiate between the roles, responsibilities and actions of each of them - it implies that their mistakes (whatever they might be) are qualitatively comparable. Now apply that reasoning to Corbyn's statement.

Surprise - Corbyn has back-pedalled and said that his reference to "self-styled Islamic States or organisations" did not include the body universally known as "so called Islamic State". But apparently this is all about me. The issue is not whether Corbyn is antisemitic - it's whether his persistent worldview (Israel = oppressor therefore everybody else = victim) coupled with his current status gives active encouragement to open antisemitism and actual violence against Jews, just because they are Jews.

"Dave r I wonder what context Corbyn said the above, I took it to be regarding racial tensions. How disrespectful of you to use this poor girls death as a way to knock Corbyn" The context was (ironically enough) reporting the results of Labour's internal investigation into anti-semitism within the party. I have no respect for Corbyn - he has consistently been an apologist for violent anti-Semites and every now and then the mask slips. I have done nothing disrespectful in relation to the terrible crime reported today, but Corbyn has, and will continue to do so, every time he refers to his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah.

He explicitly equates Israel (all of Israel - not just Zionists, or Netanyahu) with Islamic State on the same day as a 13 year old Israeli girl is murdered simply for being Jewish. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you 'confused' when it comes to Jews, like so many other Corbyn sympathisers?

Corbyn this morning: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic States or organisations" BBC this morning: "A teenage Israeli girl has been stabbed to death in an attack at a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank. Thirteen-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel was attacked while she slept inside her bedroom in Kiryat Arba. A security guard who responded to the incident was wounded before the attacker was shot dead by other guards. The Palestinian health ministry identified the assailant as 19-year-old Mohammed Tarayreh, from the nearby village of Bani Naim" I wonder how many people support that part of his message.

"Bliar mainly made Tony Bliar electable & has since profited wildly along with the rest of his family & cronies. History [including next week's Chilcott report] will show him as a charlatan & agent for his paymasters." I think you're wrong. History will portray Blair as the most gifted political leader of his generation who succeeded in remodelling a party that was fatally out of touch and looking likely to become an irrelevance. However, he did a deal with his friend/rival that significantly limited his power in relation to domestic policy and then got drawn into foreign policy adventuring (like so many second and third term leaders), which proved his undoing. However, his influence continued to be felt as Cameron took on the same task for the Tories, with (so far) similar electoral results.

It is so important that we point out to our teachers the irresponsibly of this action; they are inconveniencing us, and acting in every way against the interests of our children. It is so important that we stand together at this time.

The NUT will strike next week. Affected schools will be closed on Tuesday. Please contact your child's teacher to voice your disgust for this selfish action designed to serve a minority hard left viewpoint at the expense of our children

"I want Labour to have a leadership election. If Corbyn comes through that, which I think he will (though not with my vote) I want the PLP to shut the @#$%& up and back him." If Corbyn hangs on and wins another leadership election a large slice of the PLP won't have the option - the knives will be out and they will either have to jump or be de-selected. Which in turn is why another Corbyn win will inevitably split the party.

"There is a hiatus in the labour party since Bliar and this current squabble might just lance the boil." On this point however I agree, although I would put it differently. Blair recognised that the Labour Party would not govern for as long as it continued to identify as (i) a socialist party or (ii) the party of organised labour - in essence that it would have to ditch much of its history and founding principles and re-position itself as a European style socisl democratic party. He was right, and won three general elections on the strength of it. The 'current squabble' is very much about whether the Labour Party wants to re-embrace those founding principles (with an added dash of post 1960s social radicalism) or whether it wants to try and perform the potentially impossible task of relaunching an electable Blairite party (whilst still maintaining that Blair himself is Satan, a war criminal, a traitor etc.).

"This is the trilemma of democracy - to whom is your first loyalty [party or country] & how to define what that loyalty is. They will all claim first loyalty to the country but then interpret that as per their collective ideal of what that is." I don't want to be unduly harsh but this makes no sense at all - literally. What are the three choices or propositions implied by the word 'trilemma', and what does it have to do with democracy?

"I have absolutely no idea what exactly Corbyn believes in" Really? Economic beliefs = the old clause 4 - public ownership, essentially. He has back-pedalled from reinstating clause 4 itself and been persuaded to tone down his statement about renationalisation, but there's no real doubt about what he believes. Foreign policy - united Ireland good, Israel bad/Palestine good, US bad/anyone who opposes US good, NATO bad, anyone called 'revolutionary' good. Domestic policy - pro trade unions, welfare state, human rights, animal rights, public sector, environmentalism, anti monarchy, big business (maybe any business), EU, free trade

There isn't any real doubt about who or what Corbyn is - as has been observed many times, his views haven't changed since the 1970s. They have been out of step with the majority of the British electorate for the same period. I guess it's possible that that has all changed, and that Britain is ready for a true socialist government, but the PLP don't think so, and the evidence is on their side - the last time they were asked, the electorate gave Cameron et al a majority. So it is a pretty stark question for Labour Party members - do you want principles that make you feel good and the opportunity in due course to be upset/disgusted when the British people reject you, or do you want even a sniff of real political power?

You know you want it. Pork pie, that is.

"You having a pop?" Why, do you want some? Pork pie, that is.

English England managers are too respectful of supposedly 'top' players and of club managers and pundits. Capello understood what was required but was undermined by everybody around him, players included (he still has the best winning record of any England manager from the past 20 years). You have to pick a system and play to it, pick the best players for the system, and when you bring in new players make them understand that they have to fit with the system, and play their role.

"just everything about that shop" You should try the pork pies - they're superb

The (boring but accurate) answer to the question is that EU rules allow applications for protected designation of origin from non EU countries so neither current nor future UK designations will necessarily be affected. EU law obviously doesn't (and never did) affect practices in non-EU countries.

If you are thinking about starting to cycle, Southwark offer free cycle training to all residents. There is an 'urban cycle skills' session which is specifically aimed at helping people deal with urban roads and traffic. And as noted above, it is possible to minimise or almost eliminate on-road time for most commutes into C London. http://www.cycleconfident.com/sponsors/southwark/

"It is a very popular school, and they are very likely to fill the place, therefore not suffering any damage, and actually benefiting from our deposit. Legally, you should only pay damages that flow from the breach of contract." With the caveat that I'm not an expert, it's not quite as simple as that. Contractual terms for payments of this type are enforceable unless they are penalties i.e. intended to be a deterrent rather than pre-estimate of loss. However, that test is applied in light of the overall commercial rationale/business model, not just the particular case, so not such an obvious outcome. You can expect that the school will have a fairly well-rehearsed case as to why this is not a penalty. If you are asking whether they are likely to pursue you if you refuse to pay, anecdotally the answer is 'yes - very likely'. Are they likely to win? Impossible to predict without seeing their evidence, and you won't get that unless you fight, and incur some fairly hefty costs. It might be worth writing to them and pointing out that it seems more likely that deposit plus a whole term's fees is an arbitrary figure rooted in tradition and practice in the sector rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, that you are willing to pay a lesser, reasonable amount, and make them an offer. Edited to add - if you want to be a bit cheeky you could also say that if they do pursue you for the full amount, you will require disclosure from them of the detailed financial information that supports any supposed pre-estimate of loss calculation i.e. how many deposits are forfeited, how many sets of fees billed and received for non-attending students, the actual additional costs to them of re-allocating rejected places etc.

I'm pretty sure that's the first time ever that Vodafone have been likened to the Blackbird Bakery

Nothing sensible will emerge from this - MPs too busy grandstanding and making look-at-me comments instead of asking sensible questions. Green will pay up re the pensions, tho' I wouldn't expect it to be full entitlement - just better than a PPF arrangement. The bigger questions about the essentially unpayable DB pension liabilities that are continuing to grow, and the even bigger questions about company law and directors/shareholders obligations and entitlements will go unasked, let alone answered.

My point was that that's not really what this case is about; if the accused had been a black (or white) college athlete from a more prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or basketball it's conceivable that the college would have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice system entirely. It's not helpful IMHO to introduce race issues where they don't arise, because it's both inflammatory and likely to divert from real issues.