DaveR

I had always understood that schools becoming academies transferred the land/buildings into a trust? Pretty sure it doesn't go to central govt.

It was a 'fresh evidence' case, so the question for the appeal court is "are we sure that this evidence would not have made any difference to the verdict?". If the answer is 'no', conviction is quashed. Second question is 'with this evidence is he bound to be acquitted (or is there any other reason not to have a re-trial?". Answer 'no', so re-trial it is. No point in trying to predict the outcome of that without knowing what the fresh evidence is - obviously enough to be capable of doubting the previous verdict, bur definitely not a clear cut winner.

The injunction is only an interim stage anyway. If there wasn't a decent case that reporting the story was (in law) wrong they would never have got an injunction in the first place, so even if this goes expect the case to go on, with a claim for big damages in the event that they print the story.

Legally it's quite complicated (and I'm definitely not an expert). Firstly, and to reassure you, you can't be prosecuted for trespass. Prosecution = criminal courts, trespass = civil matter. Secondly, it is possible to acquire rights over land that belongs to someone else over time, including the right to effectively take the land as your own, but whether you have actually acquired any rights (for example what is described above as an implied licence) depends on what exactly has happened in relation to the land, and for how long. This is an area that, if you want to pursue it, really needs specialist advice from a lawyer with plenty of experience of these sorts of cases, so will take some time and quite a lot of money. If you just want to buy the land you can approach the owner and make them an offer, but it would be worth getting a valuation from a local surveyor so you have an idea what a reasonable offer might be. As regards any historic liability for damages for trespass, this is also unfortunately pretty complicated, so if it actually comes up I'd recommend taking some advice - if you have been occupying the land for years, you can't change that now, so what you need to know is whether you may have a defence and/or what the measure of damages might be. These are also dependent on the particular facts, so there's no point in trying to give any general advice.

What's the difference between an accountant and a 'fancy accountant'? Other than the latter being tedious class war shite?

Blackbird hot x buns are fantastic - 50p each and not only much tastier than supermarket ones but also about twice the size. Also Konditor and Cook - a bit more expensive but also huge. ?1.50 too much though, and I've always been underwhelmed by Brick House generally. Shame because I really want to like it, but tbh I prefer Blackbird or Boulangerie Jade every time.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/471/parking_enforcement_and_fines/1059/vehicle_removal In all cases please phone the TRACE service on 0845 206 8602 to find out if your vehicle has ben removed and taken to the car pound or re-positioned to another street within the borough.

McDonnell has all the objectionable bits of Corbyn and none of the human decency.

"So a little bit of positivity to our direction please" Sorry, it's not that kind of forum. The kind where if you only want people who agree with you to post, you can get irritated and expect everybody to respect your wishes. As I understand it from your last post, you're basically saying that for you the choice is between Fairlawn and a private nursery, and you'd rather have Fairlawn. That doesn't sound like the strongest argument.

"We put a petition together to show how much we love this nursery and also urge Lewisham Council to find a way to keep it, DaveR." By doing what? I don't understand a petition that doesn't have any idea what the answer to that question is. Also, I don't want to be picky, but LAs are statutory bodies, so they have to be pretty careful about making sure they have the legal power to do stuff, particularly where it involves spending money.

"I was trying to figure out what the were selling-- the building, the going concern etc as the price seemed low." It seems to be the balance of a 20 year lease granted in 2007, so 11 odd years to run. At a yet to be determined rent.

Would now be a good time to observe that the petition doesn't specify what signatories are asking for. At all. Or even who they're asking. How can anyone sign it?

"And I felt the way nashoi's post was phrased was intentionally challenging the credibility of the point being made, so you know...." He was intentionally challenging the point being made. And with good reason. Because what you posted, as a 'history lesson' is (let's be charitable) a highly politicised minority view of the relevant events. Your basic point (that anti-Irish prejudice shouldn't be dismissed as 'not real racism') is a good one, that I agree with. Citing bilge history in support is no help.

"If you want to be part of that nashoi, then that's up to you." Not worthy of you Mick. Indentured labour has a long history in Britain and Europe and is clearly not the same as slavery - you won't find any sensible historian who equates the two. In the 17th and 18th centuries apprentices were still indentured and the rules they were subject to would be unrecognisable by comparison to what we think of as employment. Serfdom wasn't formally abolished in England until 1660 and persisted in many Western European countries until well into the 18th century. Different times. Pointing out that the "Irish slaves" myth is just that does not make someone a racist sympathiser

"And I would still like to think that most people given the choice between working and claiming would choose work." We'd all like to think that, but the data suggests something different. FWIW, I think the number of out and out dishonest claimants is very small indeed. It's more the case that for too many people (and in too many communities) the incentives to find work are small and the norm is to rely on benefits. If that is the norm then there is every incentive to push for as much as you can get, and hold on to it for as long as possible, and the data suggests that that is what happens. Tax credits were a disaster for many reasons, but most of all because they normalised receiving benefits whilst in work

"Brave man DaveR...." "Government attacking disabled people" is an easy headline to write, if you're that way inclined, but the truth is that every govt since the mid 90s has been trying to do something about the cost of disability benefits. The number of claimants doubled from the mid 80s - mid 90s and has been stuck at 2.5 million or so ever since. At the peak, 7.5% of the entire working age population were claiming. In recent times the swing has been from claims based on physical disability to mental/behavioural conditions, with the latter now being near 50% (or 60% for under 35s). You don't have to be very cynical to see a connection between that change and the introduction of more stringent tests - how much more difficult is it to test objectively for behavioural conditions?

"I agree - people with disabilities need to be properly looked after and I think their approach is very harsh" It's worth reminding everybody that, despite all the data suggesting that the UK population is and has been getting progressively healthier, welfare spending on disability related benefits continue to rise. In England and Wales the bill for these benefits is twice as much as the total bill for both JSA and Income Support. It's an unfortunate fact that if you offer people who are not working three levels of increasing payments, based on (i) not working and not looking for work, (ii) not working and looking for work or (iii) not fit to work, you create a perverse incentive for people to go for option (iii). Research from all over the world has demonstrated pretty comprehensively that, despite what we would like to believe, human behaviour consistently responds to financial incentives, whether it involves having kids, giving up smoking, or even dying.

"Its about average for zone two but relatively expensive for South / South East London and more expensive than East London" Correct http://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/metrics/houseprices/default/BTTTFTT/12/-0.1119/51.5055/

"I think the problem with your argument is, like the one where one accuses all cyclists of jumping red lights whenever they try to talk about the dangers of cycling,that it belittles justifiable concerns over the ever increasing pressures on a profession that we all rely upon. There is a huge recruitment crisis in state education at the moment, and this governments way of attacking that is to force all schools to become academies so that hey can employ unqualified teachers. The crisis itself justifies the article. Would I be right to assume that you think all Junior doctors are all whingers as well?" I don't really follow the cyclist analogy at all, so I'm going to ignore that. I would also question whether there is a 'huge recruitment crisis' - the NAO report that generated a lot of headlines is much more measured, as you would expect, and makes clear that trends are uncertain and (so far) short term. But even if there are recruitment problems it's a huge jump to suggest that it's because of (very recent) changes in the approach to pupil assessment. Your point about academies and unqualified teachers is obviously rubbish. Junior doctors have only recently joined the ranks of whingers.

"My house on Ulverscroft is one of 6 built in 1887... The cost of the 6 houses was ?420. ?70. each... and the rent for each house was ?5. per year.. And East Dulwich was a lot more gentrified in 1887..." What's your point? ?70 was probably a year's income in 1887 for a reasonably skilled worker. But they would also have spent something like 50% of their wages on food (today it's something like 10%). And they wouldn't have had a car, or a TV, or a fridge, or state education or healthcare, for that matter. Plus, talking about gentrification in 1887 doesn't make any sense at all. Whatever point you think you're making, it's bollocks.

"The problem with education as that everyone has an experience of it which makes them think that they know more than the professionals. You wouldn't do it with dentists, lawyers or engineers, why do it with teachers?" I agree with this, with one very important caveat. All the other professionals that you mention, and others, expect to be held to high professional standards by colleagues, professional bodies, regulators etc., and (these days) to have to be able to explain to lay clients/patients etc. in non-technical language what they are doing and why. FWIW my experience of my kids' teachers is that most of them recognise this, and are good, some very good. They seem to be focussed on getting on with the job, as opposed to whingeing about the government, too much pressure, and claiming that the world is about to end. Which is where we began.

Teachers are always claiming that disaster is looming. Just like they're always claiming that they're not paid enough, that they only care about 'the kids', and that if only people would leave them alone to do exactly what they want everything would be fine. The author of the first piece rather gives himself away when he writes: "..unless you want Ofsted to sack your head teacher and give your school (and the land it?s built on) to one of Michael Gove?s friends (or if your school is already controlled by one of Michael Gove?s friends)" OK for an NUT campaign leaflet, but not very convincing in what is masquerading as the plea of a 'professional'. But it will reliably find favour with the typical one-note metropolitan hand wringer who writes: "...I certainly can't watch our EDucation, our NHS, and our housing be decimated in this way..." Most teachers are fine, most kids are fine, there is no crisis.

"I read that article and have to say it sounds like tripe to me. As if there weren't minicabs with drivers of other nationalities before?" I agree that the last bit seemed a bit over the top, but the economic point seemed compelling - heavily regulated taxi firms cosy up to the government and (like essentially every other institution or business in Paris) discriminate against guys from the poor suburbs, whereas Uber is open to anyone.

Good story about Uber in Paris: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf3d0444-e129-11e5-9217-6ae3733a2cd1.html#axzz42EFqpQ3K "Uber?s success in the banlieues is a spontaneous response to decades of public policies that have failed to combat discrimination and boost job creation.... The benefits of Uber cabs go beyond economics, the drivers say: they improve social cohesion at a time when France, divided over its Muslim population, needs it badly. ?It?s two worlds meeting at last,? says Joseph Francois, who heads one of the largest minicab companies with 140 drivers. ?You?ve got young people from the suburbs transporting Parisian lawyers from Neuilly, artists, people coming from China or Australia. All of a sudden, social barriers and prejudices vanish. They talk. They have a better understanding of each other.?

I believe that Uber run a financing operation to help drivers get cars, and that they have to be hybrids, hence the ubiquity of the Prius.