DaveR

I don't know Marseille very well but I'd want to stay centrally, either near the Old Port or the area around the Cours Julien.

"With Uber you don't know if the driver is either registered or legal, always use a black cab. They are safe, reliable and know where they are going." Uber cars and drivers are regulated in exactly the same way as other private hire outfits, and the level of regulation has increased significantly in recent years, as well as being set to increase again. Arguably you are much safer with Uber than either a minicab or a black cab because not only is each individual driver identified to you and rated but there is also a real time record of your pick up and journey. Plus, with the advances in GPS/Google Maps since the acquisition of Waze by Google any residual advantage from having done 'the Knowledge' has just about disappeared. So this is bollocks.

Yes. And yes.

La Ciotat is a nothingy kind of town, post-industrial. Cassis is pretty, not sure if it has much of a beach, if any. That section of coast is known for the calanques, like smaller fjords, rather than beaches.

"Seems a shame they have decided not to reflect upon on the retail heritage of the area." Except that's not what the purpose of the article is.

I'm still pretty old school on this one - bacon sandwich with lots of butter and brown sauce, strong tea with lots of milk and sugar, then a long brisk walk.

I wouldn't interpret the calls as an encouragement to commit fraud. Claims farmers pay for details of vehicles and individuals that have been involved in accidents, and then call them up hoping to persuade them to claim (or if they have already claimed, to think of another head of loss they could claim for). The info they get isn't always reliable though, plus if they get desperate they might cold call on the basis that occasionally you get lucky and someone did have an accident recently. Generally though it doesn't make sense for them to try and generate entirely false claims - it's a lot more difficult than you might think, and insurance companies are actually very good at picking up fraud.

"Whether a persons view is agreeable or not, it's quite clear when someone is very engaged in what they debate beyond just having a view." Unfortunately there's no consistent correlation between the level of engagement and the rigour of the analysis, or indeed the openness of the mind (arguably an inverse correlation for the latter). I'd always rather hear from a genuinely gifted dilettante than a truly committed moron. "People who are political activsts (for want of a better definition) are usually very driven. Unions are organised and maintained and run by people like that. The came is true of charities or any organisation that depends on a huge amount of voluntary effort. I can't ever see a time when I won't be motivated to do somthing if I can to defends peoples right to a certain quality of life for example. Altruism might be a rare thing, but it definitely exists on many levels and in many forms." Living up to your name, blah blah blah. Back on point, the focus on immigration in the context of Brexit is a reflection of the fact that the rise of UKIP has little to do in reality with the EU, and a lot to do with finding a useful scapegoat for the perceived ills of contemporary Britain. The accession of new EU members led to large short term flows and consequent social disruption and pressure on infrastructure in particular towns and regions, but that is largely in the past. The movements of people caused by current crisis in Syria and continuing chronic instability in Iraq and Afghanistan obviously have nothing to do with the EU and the UK's position will not be materially different in or out. The sticky level of unemployment amongst domestic less skilled workers will not be cured by changing immigration policy. Comparatively speaking, nothing to see here.

"While it's hyperbolic, I guess I don't have much of an issue with that kind of passion/noblesse oblige/pomp, because it usually comes from a good place." You rarely hear that kind of hyperbole from people who actually expend time and effort trying to help real people with real problems, in their own time, and at their own expense. I don't claim to be one of those people (more than once a month), but claims of moral superiority accompanied by incoherent rubbish annoys the shit out of me. "Sigh Dave R. Do you think anyone who stands up for people is a hypocrit then? I wonder what you do with your spare time? Do you just poor scorn over anyone who tries to challenge inequality or poverty or any other worthwhile issue?" See my comment above.

My comment is directed only towards the avowed intention to 'fight...'til my last breath'. The essential point of Godwin's law is the ability of individuals to poison any argument, no matter how reasonable (or at least interesting) through their wider behaviour and thus do a disservice to the idea of reasoned debate. At a time when political discourse seems to be becoming more polarised and one dimensional in many places and across many topics this is a serious issue, particularly where pretty much all the easy arguments have been decided and only the hard ones are left. At the level of actual govt policy, immigration is a difficult and complex topic, and the differences between most mainstream UK politicians/parties are actually pretty thin. Being in or out of the EU is far less important than most assume.

"....til my last breath if necessary" ....or until I get home (with a nice artisan loaf) and sit in a comfy chair with a mug of tea, and smugly congratulate myself on being able to be utterly comfortable and morally pure, at the same time. Idiot.

An interesting take on Trump and the Republican party: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

Antwerp and Ghent both have good contemporary galleries and you could easily do both in a few days.

"That's not a baised free assessment just bc the government has set the policy. In fact, each government subverts policy to its whim, resulting in chronic underfunding and making meaningless any arguments as above based on the logic of funding as a deciding element." This literally makes no sense at all. Governments don't subvert policy, they make policy, based on the legitimacy derived from democratic elections. They are answerable to parliament and the courts, and to the electorate when they want another term. This is UK constitution 101.

I think the point being made in the article is not that this vaccine should or should not be made available to children of any particular age, but that social media driven petitions are a poor way to make health policy. Everybody understands (I hope) that healthcare demands are infinite and budgets are not, so funding decisions have to be made that result in effective treatment being denied on the grounds of cost. Govts design a process for those decisions to be made, and then people try to subvert that process - should that be applauded/supported? That's the question.

"Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being punitive and that should not go to the person complaining. The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that." Sorry, you're still talking out of your @rse. No one make a claim against someone who obviously can't pay - nothing to do with 'the system'. I have no idea how the ?100k figure was arrived at, but it wasn't by a court i.e. 'the system', and it's likely to have been (at least) a generous offer because Clarkson doesn't want the publicity. "Damages should cover actual monetary loss" - really? What if I published a new story on the front page of The Times saying that you were a paedophile? Or stood outside your house every night playing Guns n Roses with my amp turned up to 11? Or took a shit on your doorstep just before you left the house for work every morning? Edited to add - in the latter case would you feel properly compensated by the cost of a tin of shoe polish?

"This is the problem with the legal system. Get hit by Fred Nobody? Suck it up. Get hit by someone famous? Quids in." The assessment of damages (the bit that involves the legal system) is the same whether the defendant has money or not - whether the guy has got any money to pay them or not is another matter. Where someone is willing to pay over the odds to avoid having to get in the witness box, that's something else, but nothing to do with the legal system. "I think stuff like this should be separated into actual damages and punitive damages (including damages for stuff like 'hurt feelings'). Actual damages go to the victim and punitive to the state (and to cover legal costs). Both sides get what they deserve, in both senses of the phrase." In the UK punitive damages are known as exemplary damages, but they're not for hurt feelings - those are 'actual' damages (injury to feelings is a recognised form of loss - you may agree or disagree with this). But neither of these have anything to do with legal costs (which are paid by the parties, not by the state) or court costs (there are fees that are supposed to cover a proportion of these costs). If you are going to start a post with "This is the problem with the legal system" it might be a good idea if you had some vague clue about how it works.

Health spending cannot be set by fans of Facebook and Instagram Pictures of dying children come up against the hard facts of funding, writes Anjana Ahuja To have the option of saving a child?s life and to reject it seems more than callous. It is the ugliest of affronts to human dignity. This sentiment is behind the largest ever public petition to the UK parliament. By Tuesday morning, a campaign calling for all children under 11, not just babies, to be vaccinated against meningitis B had acquired more than 750,000 signatures ? far more than the 100,000 required to trigger a parliamentary debate. Many signatories were stirred into action by photographs of dying children, posted by bereaved parents on social media. Each photograph brings a statistical rarity wretchedly to life. In an era when government spending priorities on healthcare are shaped by data and statistics but the currency of democracy is social media, clashes between populism and prudence are inevitable. We are moving into perilous territory: a healthcare system that bends under the weight of public opinion runs the risk of overpaying for drugs and eventual collapse. The brain and spinal cord are protected by membranes called the meninges, which become infected and inflamed in meningitis. The flu-like illness can be caused either by a virus or, more worryingly, by bacteria. Bacterial meningitis is often associated with septicaemia (blood poisoning), which can result in amputation, organ failure or death. The disease can move quickly and aggressively, especially in very young children, with meningitis B accounting for 90 per cent of the roughly 2,000 cases seen in Britain each year. About one patient in 10 dies. The infection is adept at hiding from the immune system, making it a tough therapeutic target, but the Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Novartis struck gold in 2013 with Bexsero, the first vaccine produced by ?genome-based reverse vaccinology?. By 2015, Bex?sero was in the hands of GlaxoSmithKline and approved for inclusion on the UK?s immunisation schedule for under-ones. (Parents of older children are seeking the vaccine privately and supplies are running short.) Since meningitis B is thankfully rare, it is difficult to evaluate Bexsero?s efficacy; the toll can fluctuate naturally and has dropped by roughly half over the past decade. The vaccine?s effectiveness has been deduced from lab tests only, which show that it stimulates the production of antibodies. The UK, in fact, is the only country with Bexsero on its childhood immunisation programme. The main reason the vaccine has not been adopted for older children is cash. In the UK and many other countries, new therapies and vaccines must pass a stringent cost-benefit analysis, tied to a metric called ?QALY? (quality-adjusted life years). The rule of thumb is that if a new treatment gives a patient an extra year of good quality life for ?30,000, then it is worth the money. In a system of finite resources, however, this means that for every treatment that is funded, another must be rejected. It is worth noting that when the UK?s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation first considered Bexsero in 2013, it rejected the vaccine outright, as not cost-effective at any price. In an ideal world, we would all wish for every child to be vaccinated against every preventable disease, and for every sick person to get the very best treatment. In the real world, that would cost the earth and most people do not want to pay the taxes needed to sustain a healthcare system capable of satisfying infinite demand. And so, alas, decent public health experts and epidemiologists must carry out the thoroughly indecent business of advising ministers on which conditions merit our money and, as a result of balancing the equation, which conditions should miss out. Sadly, social media rarely shows both sides of the equation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3cd78d5a-da38-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz4106xJOeL

I think there is a problem with a campaign to save a building that was obviously purpose built as a car park and is ill-suited to anything else, for use primarily as something else. There is nothing of merit about the current structure - only the use. If there was a campaign to preserve the existing use (and similar uses of community benefit) in any future re-development I suspect it might be easier to support.

>>Is it possible to be an evangelist vegetarian and/or an advocate for animal welfare without coming across as a >>humourless, smug, patronising idiot? >>Discuss. With reference to this thread (it's not looking good). Obviously touched a nerve there. If the facts make you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you should take a look at yourself? The evidence mounts....

Is it possible to be an evangelist vegetarian and/or an advocate for animal welfare without coming across as a humourless, smug, patronising idiot? Discuss. With reference to this thread (it's not looking good). I liked the Sea Cow, and I'm sure I'll like Meat Liquor. The folks at GBK must be a bit nervous though.

I was also there last night. I didn't feel old, or at least not older than most of the people in there. And I'm definitely not young. Maybe I'm just in denial. I like it - as with the CPT - Gt Exhibition conversion, taking out the central bar and opening up the room just works, somehow. If they can keep it half as full as it was last night it'll be a massive success.

I'm, not really bothered about this tbh, but there is a valid underlying point. Chris Gayle's conduct was portrayed as being inherently wrong, at least in part because of the power balance - he's the star, the woman in question was a journalist. That power balance is the same as between a female movie star and a journalist, but in that situation "the reaction of the person on the receiving end...is absolutely key". I suspect if that reasoning were applied to a gender reversed scenario, it would be said that it's irrelevant - the pressure on the less powerful person to play along or at least not object makes that analysis invalid. There is a real question as to whether this: "Men also have to be sensitive to the fact that Women are often have to put up with repeated, unwanted attention and low level street harassment (much as I would like to pretend that I get wolf whistled at as a man, it isn't true) and so they are operating in a very different context." is relevant at all in a situation where the woman is obviously in a position of power.

I went to Rome with the kids last summer, had a fantastic time (even with the heat). We stayed in an apartment that was slap bang in the centre so we could walk most places, and a couple of times when we were out and the kids got very tired it was a short and fairly cheap cab ride home. They loved the Colosseum, Pantheon etc., and also the less obvious stuff like the fountains that are everywhere. Lots of pizza, pasta and ice creams, obviously. With 6 days you could also fit in a day trip to the beach!