DaveR

"On the whole, vegetarians and vegans tend to be healthier long term than carnivores and live on average longer, and all the data supports that." I'm not sure that's true. "According to pure vegetarian ideologists, people consuming vegetarian diet have better health and live longer than nonvegetarians, because persons consuming milk, dairy products, meat, eggs and fish are at health risk. In fact the most healthy people in Europe are inhabitants of Iceland, Switzerland and Scandinavia, consuming great amounts of food of animal origin. Meta-analysis of several prospective studies showed no significant differences in the mortality caused by colorectal, stomach, lung, prostate or breast cancers and stroke between vegetarians and "health-conscious" nonvegetarians. In vegetarians, a decrease of ischemic heart disease mortality was observed probably due to lower total serum cholesterol levels, lower prevalence of obesity and higher consumption of antioxidants. Very probably, an ample consumption of fruits and vegetables and not the exclusion of meat make vegetarians healthful." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19166134

http://www.johnlewis.com/inspiration-and-advice/products-we-stock-that-are-made-in-the-uk

http://www.hotter.com/gb/en/womens-boots http://www.solovair.co.uk/ http://www.yull.co.uk/

This was my first post on this topic, and i don't think I've posted anything different since: "If the staff at Picture House want to strike for more pay, that's a matter for them. To observe that they are not poorly paid comparatively for the job they do is relevant. To suggest that the LLW is a benchmark below which any pay for any job is not just inadequate but somehow immoral is just nonsense. Equally, to suggest that the fact that a company makes profits is somehow indicative that they should inevitably pay their staff more is ludicrous. FWIW, I am in favour of decent pay because I think it is the long term interests of both businesses and wider society, and I would support a London specific increase in the minimum wage, but the ultimate judgment lies with employers." I don't read any of the posts quoted as saying 'it would be wrong to pay people more', but I guess you see what you want to see. I'm not going to bother to respond to this: "And that?s even before we address your anger management and people issues Dave" Other will make their own (slightly more rational) judgment about who has 'issues'

"What is most dispiriting reading threads like this is not seeing comments like ?yeah it?s a shame but what can you do? ? which is already fatalistic enough It?s reading comments like ?no, they shouldn?t have more money. It would be wrong to give them more money? " Can you point us to a comment where someone says "it would be wrong to give them more money"?

Typical patronising crap from Will Self. "The ambience of the Picturehouse cinemas is designed to make the punters feel as if they?re part of a big happy, raggedy family of enthusiasts, all keen on frothy coffee, flapjacks and the intense screen presence of Michael Fassbender." Really? Did anybody honestly think that Picture House cinemas were some sort of film club, rather than a business? And now, because you've been so cynically misled, you're going to boycott them. But not the Odeon - you always knew that they were rapacious capitalists so their staff can go hang - what did they expect when they got a job there. Edited to add - some credit to Will Self though for unintentionally identifying what's behind the outrage here - the cries of the metropolitan middle classes who realise they've been taken in by the marketing. I'm just slightly surprised that WS wanted to broadcast his own credulousness quite so widely

"this is the kind of economically illiterate point" - condescending as well - always a pleasure with you Dave It's not getting any better I'm afraid, with this: "So what IS it we look for when we wonder if a company CAN pay more to it's staff? A benevolent CEO with a twinkle in his or her eye?" You might look at how its margins compare with competitors, what the remuneration of senior managers looks like, whether it is consistently generating and retaining surplus cash from its operations, and the level of returns to shareholders. You might look at the overall pay and benefits package for employees and its record on retention and progression of staff. In short, you might do a bit more than adopt a stupid knee jerk reaction to some load of old sh!t you read somewhere that naturally played to your incoherent vaguely lefty feelgood man-of-the-people approach to every damn thing. Is that better?

1 - because the staff did something about it and deserve support or not, depending on your viewpoint. Particularly if, as has been alleged, it is true that non-striking employees were harassed/threatened 2 - because they have media attention, the case could be useful for other employees going forward - the more business introduce LLW the more pressure to introduce it elsewhere rises subject to the shooting in the foot point mentioned above 3 - not many of the other businesses on LL are global affairs with income in hundreds of millions and profits measured in tens of millions this is the kind of economically illiterate point that seems compelling until you actually think for two seconds. the bigger a business is the bigger its turnover and profit. It also has bigger liabilities, bigger debts, more employees, more shareholders etc. etc. Proper measures of business comparison look at margins or, better, ROCE (return on Capital Employed). Saying 'look at their profits, they can afford to pay (this person/those people/everybody they employ) more' is lazy nonsense.

This the quote from Picture House: ?The staff at The Ritzy recently agreed a pay package with Picturehouse Cinemas, which includes substantial pay increases across four years. ?During the negotiation process it was discussed that the amount of income available to distribute to staff would not be increasing, and that the consequence of such levels of increase to pay rates would be fewer people with more highly paid jobs.? If true, then it appears that the union shot themselves in the foot somewhat. I wonder whether this information was disseminated to all the staff? FWIW, I am generally in favour of increasing minimum wage levels in London, not least because low pay means subsidies from taxes going to private landlords - a classic perverse outcome. But you have to allow for the fact that increased pay in some circumstances will mean fewer jobs.

"cut my teeth on bitter, greene king dominated, adnams was often available and couple of places did tolly cobbold up my way" It sounds like you grew up not far from me. Did you ever drink 'brain damage' - a half of Abbot Ale and a bottle of St Edmunds barely wine?

Blimey - that's less than 100 yards from Balfe's. Quite an aggressive move.

"....but really, really don't want to be added to TimeOut's spam mail list" http://10minutemail.com/10MinuteMail/index.html

I don't normally drink lager but this place is awesome: http://bierschenke.co.uk/drink/ especially the Hacker Pschorr Dunkle Wei?e - dark wheat beer. If they had it on draft in the local I'd be lost (to my family)

Assuming you have a clean claims history and no issues with the property (subsidence, previous structural problems) you should be able to knock 30-40% off that. Have you tried any of the comparison sites? They're all about as good as each other as far as I can see.

"You'd be hard pushed to find a finer real ale pub in London Bridge." http://www.utobeer.co.uk/the-rake/

The Wolseley in Picadilly or the Delaunay in Aldwych are the same group and do good afternoon tea for about ?25

Portugal, but not the Algarve. We've been twice in recent years; flights to Lisbon, and a rented apartment or villa with a pool. Both flights and accommodation quite a bit cheaper than Spain or France, for example, and costs once you're there are significantly less. I'd particularly recommend this resort for young kids: http://visit-sao-martinho-do-porto.com/en/ because the beach is very sheltered and the sea is calm. We also had an excellent holiday in Cascais. The drawbacks - the sea is cold, much colder than the southern Med, and the weather is not as hot, though still 28 - 30 degrees.

this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1439816a-52bb-11e4-a236-00144feab7de.html#axzz3G756hLMV

It's important to distinguish between what people say they will vote for, and what history shows they actually vote for. UK voters have consistently said in polls that they would support higher taxes to pay for better public services, then voted against it. Obviously, if you ask people whether taxing people earning ?1m+ is a good idea a majority are going to say yes (tho' still only 56%), but I would seriously question whether as a policy that is a game changer. In any event I think people's faith in government to spend money wisely has been seriously eroded, hence the importance of economic competence. As to the gulf between what people will vote for and what might credibly work in practice, that's another story.

Re the Mitchell article, the fact that charitable status comes with tax breaks does not mean that private schools overall get a public subsidy. The ?365m in bursaries is a complete red herring - just the saved cost to the state of educating the 600,000 odd kids in private schools is around ?3 billion annually. Unsurprisingly, the Grauniad appears unfussed by the economic illiteracy. "It's notable on this thread that many of those 'defending' (if that's the right phrase) private schools have resorted to this - referring to peoples' general politics, social background, or claiming they are jealous, or have a chip on their shoulder. It suggests to me a paucity of good arguments in defence of charitable status." Re this, perhaps a Freudian slip - "defending private schools..". If the debate is about private schools in general (and many of the posts on this thread have ranged far wider than the issue of charitable status) then general politics and social background are inevitably relevant. Even the charitable status argument is essentially political - how many of those arguing in favour of public schools losing their charitable status are also having a pop at the RSPCA for wasting so much cash on ill-advised hunting prosecutions? Everybody has their own idea of what charity means; charity law has to be a little more certain and specific.

I've used these people a couple of times: http://www.flatbarcelona.net/ though they used to have more apartments. Tripadvisor, airbnb, homeaway all have loads and with loads of reviews. As to areas, I'd also recommend the Born, or Gracia. Both areas are central enough without being right in the centre, if that makes sense.

Interesting. Usually an acquitted defendant gets their costs paid back pretty much automatically. In this case though, the costs had been paid by News International, and even though the application was made by Brooks, they would have got the money if an order was made. The judge obviously thought that was a bit suspect, because News International was so heavily implicated in proven hacking, including by other individuals who had been convicted, and wanted to ask a whole load of potentially embarrassing questions, the answers to which would have been read out in open court. At that point, News decide they don't want the costs after all! Nice work Saunders J.

"Such a simple question: What pro bono things has Alleyn's School done for the East Dulwich community since the 2006 Act?" And such a simple answer - things done pro bono for the ED community are irrelevant under the 2006 Act.

"Don't have private equity - same people for years." The original guy is still involved but put together an investor group to fund the expansion http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/Business/Former-Clapham-House-boss-in-new-venture http://www.fulhamshore.com/background/

"...May I suggest you look at how well state (or comprehensives as you call them) schools perform, particularly in areas such as London. Paying to go private does not buy you a first class education it buys you a place in society. Why are there so little state school students at Oxford and Cambridge? Is it because they are not bright enough? Or is it because they don't mix in the right environment for them to be accepted?" I sincerely hope the author of this tosh is not really a deputy head teacher. I don't think anybody (or at least anybody who is not blinded by prejudice) is seriously suggesting that private schools don't generally deliver a very good standard of education, or that Oxford and Cambridge don't take students based on academic merit. The real issue is that getting a really good secondary education from the state sector depends pretty much on where you live, whereas going private allows you to buy a degree of certainty. That seems unfair, but the answer, surely, is to agitate for more consistently better state schools. Of course, there will be parents who go private for other reasons, some of them stupid and/or offensive to some, but ultimately that's just because there are always stupid people out there* (*See *Bob*'s Law of Cocks)