DaveR

I used to use Stansted a lot - outside of the height of rush hour it was a predictable 1 hour drive and there were plenty of cheap and reliable 'meet and greet' parking firms, so you could just pull up outside and walk straight in. Now the traffic is awful and somehow the price of parking has gone up and the service level has gone down - no idea why - so I just avoid using it if at all possible. There don't seem to be many places you can only get to from Stansted, and these days I find that half the time it's as cheap to fly to Europe on BA from Heathrow T5, which by the standards of most international airports is a pleasure. Sorry - no more helpful tips.

"I was told by the security guard that the basket contained some raw steak, tea bags, and sweets...." Maybe a very challenging episode of ready steady cook?

"Saying something which is (arguably) factually correct doesn't necessarily make it OK, when it's nevertheless insensitive and potentially hurtful." The problem with this is, what consequences flow from something being "not OK"? Is it a crime? Is it illegal in another way, so you can be sued for damages, so someone can get an injunction to stop you saying it? Is it OK for you to be sacked? Excluded from school? Prevented from campaigning in public? Scruton in the link above identifies the inherent conflict between trying to satisfy the proponents on the one hand of "Islamophobia" and on the other "homophobia", two very vocal groups who are quick to try and justify their right not to be offended. If a Muslim wants to stand on a street corner shouting that homosexuality is a sin, and a gay man wants to stand on the opposite corner shouting that Islam is an evil religion, do you stop either or both of them? The only principled stand is to let them both do it, and you only stop it when violence is an immediate threat, and then only to stop the violence. That's what free speech really means. If you are offended by what people say, don't listen, or confront them and argue your case. If you are running a university, encountering views that challenge everything you believe to be right and true is a valuable part of your education (and a preparation for the rest of your life - after you have graduated, very few people are going to agree with you about how smart and generally fantastic you are).

I don't have a view on the underlying issue, and I generally have little truck with la Greer's views, but this is a free speech issue, and IMHO this is becoming a serious problem, particularly in universities. When the line between incitement to violence and so-called 'hate speech' is blurred (often deliberately) you end up criminalising anything that offends anybody. Then it's just a case of who shouts the loudest. See Roger Scruton on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j6byb

On topic, there was also reference above to limiting stop and search. This is currently the subject of a big row between the Home Sec and the Met Police: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11946081/Theresa-May-says-police-knife-crime-claims-are-simply-not-true.html The only fact about knife crime that appears clear and uncontroversial is that more carrying of knives leads to greater use of knives to injure/kill, so any strategy aimed at dissuading people from carrying knives in the first place is worth a go. Sentencing is already fairly tough, and stop and search is still fairly heavily used, so changing either of those can't be expected to have radical results. The boring truth is that education (in the broadest sense of the word) and challenging gang culture is what is going to change things (on this I agree with BlahBlah)

"Stop bullying Foxy. Pathetic playground bully." If someone keeps shitting in your street, do you just keep stepping over it or do you try and persuade him to stop?

"There is huge anger and dismay at Southwar's appalling plans to destroy 12 acres of woods and hundreds of thousands of graves for a few years of burial." There appear to be a comparatively small number of very vocal opponents to these plans, and a significant number either actively in favour (including people with relatives buried in the cemeteries in question) or who can see that there are good arguments on both sides. Talking about "Huge anger and dismay" at "appalling plans" is misleading, to say the least.

"The problem is that the element of those who > carry knives know that should they get caught with > them and arrested, > when it come to going to court they will receive > no more than a slap on the wrist and 80 hours > community service. > > There is no deterrent.. > > Falter on your Council Tax and you get banged > up.." > > This is up to your usual level of utter nonsense - > well done. A man who armed himself with a 5" knife has been sentenced to 200 hours community service. [www.worcesternews.co.uk] You can be sent to prison for up to 3 months if the court decides you don?t have a good reason to not pay your Council Tax and you refuse to do so. [www.gov.uk] Not Nonsense.. Dozens of such incidents up and down the country.. DF" Let's see if we can spot the difference between a sweeping generalisation about what "the problem is" and a single anecdote plus a hypothetical. You're talking out of your rear, yet again.* There's a bill that will supposedly find its way to parliament in this session that has a two strikes provision i.e. two knife possession offences = automatic prison, 6 month minimum. The info supporting that suggested that in 2014 about 35% of knife possession offences = immediate custody. The stats usually lump together bladed article and offensive weapon convictions (penknife or flick knife, essentially). For the latter you are much more likely to go to prison, even first time. One of the criticisms of the bill is that it is likelihood of getting caught which is the deterrent, not the sentence, and there's a fair amount of research that backs that up. *with the smartening up of almost all the local boozers, the experience of being buttonholed at the bar by some ignorant old git and bored for hours by his tendentious drivel has almost disappeared, but it's clearly alive and well in the online saloon bar.

This map shows differences between parliamentary constituencies for a number of variables: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc174/index.html I'm not sure it will answer any question relating to Corbyn's electability

"The problem is that the element of those who carry knives know that should they get caught with them and arrested, when it come to going to court they will receive no more than a slap on the wrist and 80 hours community service. There is no deterrent.. Falter on your Council Tax and you get banged up.." This is up to your usual level of utter nonsense - well done.

It's obviously possible that Corbyn could generate millions of 'extra' votes from previously demotivated young non-voters, and that the distribution of those votes could be such as to deliver a general election victory. As an electoral strategy for the main party of opposition it strikes me as somewhat risky. As the sole strategy (which is what it has to be if your core message is 'Tories are scum') it verges on the reckless.

Taking it/dishing it out.

"I think the SNP took those Labour votes Dave, not the Tories" Then you think wrong. If Labour hadn't lost any seats to the SNP the Tories would still have a majority. If Labour want to be in power they have to win in England. The comparison is not between 2015 and 2010 but between both of those elections, and 1997/2001/2005. T Blair took voters from the Tories in England. Brown lost them, Ed couldn't win them back, and Jezza scares the living sh!t out of them/alternatively pisses them right off and/or makes them laugh (not in a good way).

"He was practically a Tory. He won't be missed. Good riddance....." which is exactly the message that Corbyn and his supporters are giving to the millions of voters who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed. A perfect strategy for getting back into government. Not.

This is a great N African restaurant, and not far from where you're staying: http://www.restaurant-lhommebleu.fr/ The street, Jean-Pierre Timbaud, has lots of other interesting places to eat The area around the Canal St Martin is great for wandering

I'm surprised no-one has suggested Franco Manca. They don't take bookings as such but if you give them an hour's notice that you're coming with a big group they will find you the space.

That may be what you're saying now, it's not what you were saying before. In any event it's all the same nonsense/denial. If the Tories hadn't won a majority would you be questioning the electoral system? Back to RB, he's obviously entitled to say whatever he wants, but he's not entitled to be taken seriously. If you judge him by what he says, he's an idiot.

"And the overwhelming millions who didn't vote Conservative over those who did would agree with me." 11 million voted Conservative, 9 million Labour. The next biggest - UKIP, nearly 4 million. Are you saying that Ukippers would agree with you (about anything)? Do you agree with them? NB - maxxi's post was...not entirely serious. Try and keep up.

The issues that R Brand speaks about may be serious one that merit debate, but listening to what he has to say about them is a waste of time, because he's an idiot. Is it any more complicated than that?

"Did you save like crazy to plug the difference? Take out a big mortgage and stretch yourself? Compromise hugely on area and pray it changes?" The simple truth is that these days you probably need to do all of the above (and most people always needed to, just not to the same extent as now). There's a link below to three bed houses with gardens in S London with asking price< ?400k (Rightmove's definition of S London is quite expansive) http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E92051&maxPrice=400000&minBedrooms=3&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&propFeature=Garden&sortType=1&numberOfPropertiesPerPage=10 Looking at the map view is quite revealing about where is affordable (obviously relative) I'd agree entirely with you about trying to step up to a house if you can stretch to it. And if you're willing to compromise on the 'pre war' you will have more choice.

For the future, I think you can get them from Thomas Schoolwear in West Dulwich. I increasingly find that you can get anything kids need for school sports there, and not expensive. And nice people. Although Decathlon is still my favourite shop in the world.

Re Loz's car rental trouble, many of the aggregator sites do let you see who the ultimate provider is, and some have ratings/reviews as well. This site is the best I have found: http://www.carrentals.co.uk/ On the wider question of rip off shops etc., my general rule is to never buy anything complicated or expensive, or that you might need to return, from a high street chain store.

"Here is more information about the difference between ?affordable rent? housing and ?social rent? housing which is genuinely affordable to lower income levels, unlike ?affordable rent?. [us7.campaign-archive1.com] A problem is that many housing developments are gaining public acceptance because of the lack of understanding of this difference. We must be vigilant in commenting on all housing developments and first discover how many ?social rent? units there are before welcoming the development because it is providing housing." That depends on whether you have a very blinkered view of social rent= good and affordable rent = bad. In any event, as I understand it this development proposes housing where at the moment there is none - there is no competing proposal for social rented housing on the site - so the starting point is something or nothing. I don't have any view re Canavans but as I understand it the starting point is that the development has to fit with the existing site, so you would expect the plans to have to include soundproofing etc. to address noise from nearby existing businesses.

So let me get this right - after Labour lost the election under a moderate left leader, and elected a hard left leader, the problem is that that leader will 'not be allowed to win' because of the 'brutal media'. That reality check keeps receding further and further into the distance.

"I know that may be hurtful to some of you...." Not so much "hurtful" More "the deluded rantings of a fool" If you could provide a list of foodstuffs and venues that annoy and or patronise you I will be sure to let you know every time I partake, so you can keep stoking the anger that burns within. Just to get you started, I'm planning to have sushi for lunch. From a conveyor belt.