DaveR

"Unless your sailing to St Kilda or hiking round the remote alps everyone now has a smartphone,tablet,laptop. You're reading your email!" There's a difference between (i) having the ability to receive (ii) actually receiving and (iii) reading. As noted above, the 'limited access' message is to deal with the unreasonable f&ckers who get shirty if they don't get a response within 20 minutes. After I binned the B'berry I had an option to set up email on my own phone, which I politely declined. The best decision ever.

I assume that the guy was sentenced to life, hence no remission and no automatic parole. Evans got a fixed term so automatic release after a certain period

There isn't a pleasant route through South London that I've ever managed to find. Tbh, I'd be tempted to go into town over Lambeth Bridge, along the Embankment to Chelsea, through the back of Chelsea Harbour then back roads to Putney Bridge, over the bridge and straight on up and over the hill to Wimbledon. I reckon it's about 3 miles further than the most direct S London route but actually quite quick.

"If a 12 year old child is consenting to sex with you, there is something wrong. We should not hold that child responsible for their rape in any way, including in the giving of a lenient sentence. I'm sorry, but they are a twelve year old child. They may be physically capable of saying yes, and meaning it, but they cannot possibly know, on an emotional level, what they are doing. Adults are supposed to protect children, not have sex with them. The law is supposed to uphold that right to protection. If, at 12, you want to have sex then you need help and education readjusting to what is appropriate behaviour for a child your age. What you do not need, and should not experience, is a man having sex with you." All of this is true/right, and is the reason why the law disregards the fact of consent for determining guilt when the victim is 12. "Her willingness should in no way have affected the sentence, in my view." Do you really think that the sentence for a violent coercive rape of a child should be the same for a non-violent, non-coercive rape where factual consent is clear? If no, then you have to accept that the fact of consent is relevant to sentence. And as much as it would be nice to think that there is no such thing as a 12 year old consenting to sex, that's just not a sustainable real world view - the Daily Mail has a story on unfeasibly young parents about every 6 months, including 12 year olds. I don't want to bang on about this too much but there is a fundamental difference between saying "UK courts are confused about the issue of consent" and saying "here is a judge that I am not happy with, (and not necessarily because of his application of the law)". The wider point is that it's easy to talk about the issues at a generalised level with a high degree of moral certainty and say that the process is failing and everybody is at fault. It's less easy to deal with the messy reality of actual facts, and to understand and distinguish between moral culpability of the offender and the degrees thereof, and surrounding factual circumstances, including the attitude of the victim, and when, if ever, the two are connected. That doesn't mean that victims are ever to blame, or 'asked for it', or that offenders should ever be able to say "she wanted it so it's not my fault", but simply that judges are required to decide how serious a case is in order to arrive at a sentence. And sometimes they'll get it wrong, and sometimes (even if they get it right) they'll say stupid things and reveal themselves to be idiots. "Of course a jury convicts and not a judge. However a jury is very swayed by a judges summing up and directions (hence the right to appeal certain convictions based on a material misdirection from a judge." And any judge in a rape case who doesn't follow the standard directions is already an idiot. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf

"...he was reluctant to ?dismiss the contention that what happened was not by mutual consent?. Well she either consented, or she didn't. She was a minor, so she couldn't. What IS he talking about?" This is not evidence of confusion, but of the fact that a 12 year old girl is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity but is factually capable, even if that factual consent may be less informed/more susceptible to persuasion than an adult, or an older child. As a result, after conviction consent is still capable of being a live factual issue that is relevant to sentencing, unlike in a case where factual lack of consent is proved by the guilty verdict. That's not to say that individual judges don't say stupid things, but it's important to recognise that blaming low conviction rates primarily on bad law or bad judges simply may not be justified. Also, it is juries, not judges who decide on guilt and innocence, and juries are directed to 'apply their common sense and experience', which sometimes leads to uncomfortable results for victims. Going back to Ched Evans, reading the appeal judgment this does not look like a case that demonstrated any difficulties or inadequacies in the law or the trial process - it's pretty easy to understand why Evans was convicted and the co-d acquitted, although on another day the co-d could easily have been convicted too.

"Don't forget today we had a 44 year old teacher found guilty of raping a 16 year old (she was his student and thus couldn't consent even though she was 16)." The conviction was not for rape, and this: "she was his student and thus couldn't consent even though she was 16" is wrong - that's not the law. Also, the judge said "Her friends described her, accurately in my view, as stalking you," i.e. the description of the victim stalking the teacher came from other students who were, presumably witnesses. That appears to be the context for the 'grooming' comment. It's not helpful to be so careless with the facts.

legalbeagle, I'm happy to accept what you meant to say. I think we still disagree about what you did actually say, but to the extent that it matters, anybody else can decide for themselves. FWIW I agree with most of your long post at the top of the page, although I don't think its necessarily fair or accurate to say that courts (by which i guess you mean judges) don't understand the issue of consent properly. There are many reasons why rape is a difficult crime to prosecute but by far the most significant one is that it very often is simply one person's word against another, and for someone to be acquitted on the basis of reasonable belief in consent a jury don't have to be sure a complainant is lying.

"DaveR - what a horrible misrepresentation that is." No, it's not. Read again what you wrote. "I wonder if the men questioning do so in part because you are all thinking back to drunken encounters and half pissed rolls in the sack..." before saying "and wondering if on closer scrutiny you would, in my opinion be a rapist" So when your opinion is challenged by men you wonder whether the reason is that as a matter of fact they have had drunken unthinking sex that, as a matter of reasonable opinion, you might categorise as rape. "If we cannot ask the hard questions (when is drunk? what is consent? what is rape?) then we cannot learn or progress. People should have the debate free from silly accusations about their intentions. Free, in fact, from the kind of nonsense that you just aimed at me." One of the hardest questions of all it to ask yourself how your own prejudices (and I deliberately used the word 'unconscious') may influence your opinions and arguments. I put the potential effect of it baldly because it's particularly important in a debate like this, where (unfortunately) a significant minority of very vocal female campaigners have sought to exclude men from the debate completely. Whether you like it or not, this is part of the debate you want to have. And just to be clear, I'm not making any claim to be any better than anyone else - I've got my own prejudices, and you can never completely put them aside. And none of this is personal.

It kind of depends what you want in terms of facilities. You can find holiday cottages etc to rent that are not over the top expensive (obviously depends on whether in school holidays or not), and there are plenty of seaside towns that are easy to get to by train, but you won't get the pool etc that you get at somewhere like Haven. There are plenty of websites that list rental properties and have reviews etc. There are holiday parks where properties are owned privately and you can rent them, with some facilities on site that are free and other activities that you might have to pay for. I stayed here a few years ago with the kids and we had a lot of fun: http://www.kingsdownholidays.co.uk/

"I have assumed that none of you think you have raped someone, it was more whether you thought I would think you have" That may be what you meant to say, but it's not quite what you said: "I wonder if the men questioning do so in part because you are all thinking back to drunken encounters and half pissed rolls in the sack, and wondering if on closer scrutiny you would, in my opinion be a rapist." It is kind of revealing about a level of perhaps even unconscious prejudice - put baldly, when a man disagrees with a woman in a discussion about rape it's because he is a rapist.

The problem with 'genderising' both sexual violence and domestic abuse is that, even though statistically men are more likely to be perps and women victims, the time when either male or female behaviour in those specific contexts could be considered representative of wider attitudes and behaviour in each gender group is now pretty long gone. For example, until 1991 it was thought that UK law did not recognise that a man could be guilty of raping his wife, and this reflected a time when, surprising as it may seem, that would have been thought to be right by very substantial numbers of both men and women. Can you imagine anyone but a lunatic fringe thinking that now? Many men, myself included, are pretty unhappy about the instinctive link drawn by (female) campaigners between male perpetrators of violent and sexual offences and 'men', a group that disproportionately consists of people who find those offences every bit as horrifying and deplorable as 'women' do ['women' being a group that also includes perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence, albeit a tiny minority). Back on point - Ched Evans unfortunately does appear to be representative of a very particular group i.e. successful professional footballers who are disproportionately likely to get mixed up in particular kinds of sexual offences, and the sooner clubs, sponsors, the PFA and others recognise that and take steps, the better. The criminal trial may be finished but that doesn't mean Ched has a right to insist that there are no further consequences.

38 Degrees. To paraphrase Marlon Brando: "What are you campaigning against? Whaddya got?"

"Ultimately any decision about land use will come down to a value judgement on the particular type of usage." No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet forum posters, have legal duties and obligations and legally defined decision making processes. "I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't still be cemeteries - it is just that should be managed in a way that is sustainable in terms both burials but also the trees, wildlife and natural spaces they contain." I think every other poster is in effect saying that they shouldn't be functioning cemeteries, because that is the consequence of maintaining all the existing woodland growth. BTW, I just noticed this above: "I will happily be bike locked to a tree if someone can bring me tea and biscuits." I'd be happy to bike lock you to a tree until you learn the meaning of hyperbole.

I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've had a pretty good look at what appear to be the most important ones. Are these the same surveys that it was suggested were being kept secret? What is clear is (i) a lot of time, effort and careful consideration has been put into these proposals and (ii) what they represent is a suggested return of the cemetery space to a more managed landscape, allowing for a reinstatement of the intended use. There is clearly room for disagreement but the hysterical title and tone of much of this thread is way over the top. London's Victorian cemeteries have significant architectural and historical merit and it is arguable that there are a lot of interesting features in the Old Cemetery currently buried under unremarkable and random growth.

"The geographical and scale benefits in the US was always going to make it a better fit than a small island tho right?" UK unit costs are always going to be higher but unit costs overall are expected to fall in any event. Any commercial operator is going to have a pretty good handle on the numbers. And the falling oil price is an indication of, wonder of wonders, real competition in the energy sector, driven to a significant extent by fracking itself, which has led to a pretty fundamental split between OPEC members having to react to falling market prices. It would be nice to see some respect for actual science - I think there is a consensus that fracking can be done safely, my concern is to ensure that if it is done, it is actually done safely.

As I understand it, there is a national shortage of burial space, and it is particularly acute in London. Far from being ancient woodland, the aerial photos appear to show that the present wooded areas have grown significantly in the last 30 years, and tbh "exceptionally beautiful woods' is, on any view, a huge exaggeration. Is anybody going to come up with a measured response to the proposals, or are we all content with nimby outrage and pretend enviro-science?

"Hmm. Wait til Uber are busy" In my experience, when Uber is busy, everybody is busy, and anyway, using Uber doesn't stop you from calling a cab firm or trying to flag a black cab; it's just another option, and one that brings a bit more competition on price. 9pm on Xmas day, ED to South Ken, ?16 with Uber - no 'time and a half' or mark up.

it's been a long time since I've read such a load of pretentious bullshit; I read the Viz annual afterwards and felt cleansed.

Any suggestions as to where I can donate a kid's bike and hopefully make somebody's Christmas a bit happier? It's a 16" wheel girl's bike originally bought from Decathlon, in good condition. I checked with the folks at the hostel on Barry Road but they thought a bit problematic due to space limitations etc. I could just stick it on here but I'm afraid past experience has made me a bit cynical and I suspect many things given away are re-sold in due course. Thanks

"The problem is that people seem to believe that if some thing is twice the price it must be better. Especially if they feel they can afford to eat something that's off limits to others... " Foxy, you've said this one way or another so many times, but the only evidence seems to be that there are some things that other people want to buy, but you don't. That doesn't quite cut it, it seems to me. The 'problem', if there is one, is that not everybody agrees with you, and it's easier for you to say they are snobs or idiots than to stop and think that they may (by their own judgment) be right.

"Yes Jeremy of course, but it's the extent to which that happens in this country which is of note. In continental countries people of all socio economic backgrounds will spend good money on premium products (however significantly more or less than they happen to be in the UK), and so the kind of disproportionate spread of indepedent delis aimed at people with money in this country would be less likely in a country such as France, Spain and Italy for example." There is some truth in this (although the earlier post which said it's all about class and snobbery was obviously crap) To take a single example, proper parmesan cheese (Parmigiano-Reggiano DOC) is not cheap anywhere, and if you go to a fancy independent deli in downtown Parma it's probably more expensive than almost anywhere else, including the late East Dulwich Deli. But in general it's probably a bit cheaper in Italy than here, at least in part because it is not regarded as a luxury product, and people are very aware of how much it should cost. That having been said, the trend in the UK is going in the right direction, in particular because supermarkets are stocking better quality stuff, whilst in some European countries it's getting worse, because people are getting less particular about food. France is now McDonalds' fastest growing European market!

I'm a somewhat reluctant convert to the Cheese Block - the quality is very good but prices are at the top end, even so, and although I've never had an actual problem with any of the people, I don't sense much enthusiasm. It's one of the reasons I continue to mourn the loss of Mootown from North X Rd

Bamboo flooring is very good - hard, stable, cheaper than wood and obvs warmer and 'softer' than tiles i.e. dropped stuff doesn't always break. Any flooring other than tiles will scratch a bit over time, but if it didn't it would look a bit unnatural.

Maybe people give up being 'proper' vegetarians because it's hard to maintain the required level of self-righteousness?

Belly pork with preserved vegetables in hotpot at Hong Kong City on New Cross Road and the aforementioned home style cabbage at Silk Road.