DaveR

Can I suggest an embargo (maybe just temporary) on referring to 'cyclists' collectively, as if they are a homogenous group who have some kind of mutual responsibility for the behaviour of all within the group? I am perfectly happy for the same approach to 'drivers' or 'motorists'*, who are similarly a large group of diverse individuals. I'm happy to say that I don't claim any virtue because I happen to go to work on a bike, I see idiotic behaviour by plenty of cyclists, and frequently, and I'm not universally supportive of pro-cycling initiatives by any means - some are rubbish, for all sorts of reasons. The most I would possibly claim is that a bike is inherently less likely to kill a person in a collision than a car, that more cycling is likely to lead to less air pollution, and that consequently I'm generally in favour of an urban transport strategy for London that sees encouraging cycling (as well as walking) as a generally good thing. NB - I note that Loz is an amateur environmental scientist in his spare time - I vaguely recall that he is also an amateur statistician, at least when it comes to proving bad things about bikes. Maybe stick to the day job? *except for the guys who drive the red Royal Mail vans. What is it with them? Is there a psycho test you have to do before they give you the keys?

"Consultation (a specialist noun when used by Southwark Council)" Consultation is a specialist noun when used by any public body - there is a whole load of case law about when the duty to consult arises and what public bodies have to do to defeat a subsequent legal challenge to a decision. This is absolutely not an issue unique to Southwark.

In case anyone is interested, the judgment is here: https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SKM_754e17102715180.pdf Obviously a lot of it is pretty technical, but it seemed to me that the key points are: this was a professional Fitness to Practice case (reflecting the nature of the course) rather than a student conduct case the Code of Conduct for the course that he had signed up for specifically warned about social media use and discriminatory and/or offensive content the reason why he was thrown off the course (rather than some other outcome) was because he essentially denied that anything he had done was relevant to him training, and then working, as a social worker (even after his pastor had advised 'cautious diplomacy' - advice he seemed to ignore) So free speech not over. But if you have aspirations for a particular career probably wise to avoid social media posts that are liable to be seen as obviously discriminatory.

I suspect the key point may be "professionally qualifying degree" and his comment about losing your job i.e. this is not just someone being kicked off an academic course but being denied entry to a particular profession. That doesn't mean it's not important or potentially worrying but likely to be of narrower application than it might appear. And I'm not entirely surprised that someone who feels the need to publicly express one of the more controversial tenets of his faith is not considered a good fit for social work. I'd be interested to read the judgment (and probably will when I have a minute)

Sorry, I still don't get it. The legal and regulatory system "allows this to happen"? I can't think of any other type of transaction that is regulated in the way you suggest this should be. Your real criticism appears to be that in your opinion it is unfair and absurd, but those things are generally unregulated - if a bakery decided to charge triple the price for cakes every Thursday, or because it is raining, that would be unfair and absurd but not obviously calling for legal/regulatory action. Discrimination is prohibited relating to specific, identifiable qualities of the victim - what's the quality here that is engaged? And taking your example: "Just recently, I was getting quotes for a 2014 and a 2015 motorcycle (NB: this specific motorcycle didn?t change between these two years). The 2014 model was cheaper to insure if declared in a garage (makes sense), the 2015 one was cheaper to insure if declared on the road than in a garage!!! All of this with the same insurer. This is the last one I remember, but over the years I have seen plenty such examples" what bit of the legal system should be changed as a result?

"Probably because insurance companies can do what they like and we have no legal re-dress when they charge you extra ??? for putting yourself and car in a situation where it is more likely to get hit!" Forgive my ignorance but what legal redress are you talking about? If you put yourself and car in a situation where it is more likely to get hit then it's logical that the risk, and hence the cost of insurance is higher? Insurers aren't entitled (to use the language above) to charge anybody anything - they offer you a price, you take it or you shop elsewhere. I was in this exact situation a couple of years ago i.e. my car got written off after some fool smashed into it parked outside my house in the middle of the night. At renewal the insurers quoted ?150 more, so I went to another company and ended up paying about ?10 more. By the following year the premium was back down to what I'd been paying before. Motor insurance premiums just get spat out of a computerised pricing model with some basic actuarial stuff factored in, but all the firms use different models and it's a very competitive market (all the big motor insurers have been making losses for most of the last 10 years). If you shop around you'll always get a better deal. NB - the legal system has nothing to do with it. Edited to add - if anyone is the victim of a 'hit and run' incident and you think the police might have been involved there is a form you can fill in to get details of the other driver and insurer and contact the other insurer direct to, in effect, make a claim.

And now, thanks to our brilliant legal system, the insurers of those poor car owners will be entitled to charge them more for years to come for a no-fault accident, even if they didn't have comprehensive and don't claim. Sorry, what does this have to do with our legal system?

"I thought conflict of interest was taken as the norm now or is our NHS free from that. I think the QC for gosh should beunder scrutiny, although the results of the scan were given just before the court case, who gave permission for access by the legal team before the parents were told.For the parents to hear in that way does not reflect well on respect shown to them." I can't see any basis for any of this. How is it suggested that the NHS had a conflict of interest in this case? What are the grounds for criticising the lawyers for GOSH? If there had been any problem with disclosure you would expect both the lawyers for the parents and the judge to have said so.

There are a few comments on this thread about how/why courts can overrule the wishes of parents. The court have the power to make decisions in the best interests of children in a variety of circumstances - perhaps most often when parents can't agree but also where there is an argument that parental wishes are not in the best interests - the most obvious being the type of example cited above, where life saving treatment is rejected for religious or other reasons. Doctors who treat terminally ill children will obviously be familiar with both the medical and legal processes, but I find it difficult to believe that these sorts of cases are ever brought without a lot of careful thought and with a great deal of reluctance. And once you've started it's obviously not appropriate to change your mind just because the case ends up in the papers or becomes very drawn out.

"I can only go on personal experiences, I've seen and heard things." ???? Overheard in the queue outside William Rose: "Darling, this queue is the only place to be seen! I just need to pick up a pork pie then I'm off to Boujis!" Overheard at Meat Liquor: "I know the burgers are better from the van with the slightly unhealthy looking man inside, but if I don't spend at least ?12 I won't be able to show my face at Soho House."

A good walk ruined.

"You have to make it so robbing people like this is more risky than lucrative and the other robbers have to see that." I agree completely. Tough sentencing for serious crime is necessary for all sorts of reasons - for punishment, for deterrence, to maintain confidence in the system, and to take dangerous people off the streets. But the idea that we can stop people committing serious crimes just by making sentences ever tougher, or by giving police more powers, is a fantasy. In fact there is very little evidence for longer prison sentences being an effective deterrent to crime per se, although it can push criminals towards different types of offending or change behaviour in other ways.

"i was agreeing with KidKruger with his comments about the leniency of our judicial system. The police have had their hands tied for years, i.e. Too much paperwork, being politically correct, don't touch anyone, etc.etc. This is the result." "I think we all agree that bit. It's what to do is the issue." No, we don't. In particular, very few people who are actually involved in the judicial system, or indeed the police, have such a simplistic view. I've posted plenty on here and rarely been accused of being a 'luvvie liberal' but this tired narrative about hamstrung coppers and soft judges is a load of tosh. Sentencing for violent offences has been getting stiffer for some years and any acid attack is likely to get prosecuted as s.18 (actual or attempted) for which max sentence is life. There isn't a guideline but a couple of cases that I've seen reported have involved double figures prison sentences - maybe not enough to satisfy everyone but hardly a slap on the wrist.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying chain = bad, but making two (I hope) slightly subtler points. The first is the apparent inconsistency between M&B's language when describing Castle pubs - "eclectic", "individual", "independent" - and both their procurement policies and the standardised, straight from head office, deathless wording used on their "individual" pub websites. "Gravy-drenched roast" - really? The second is that IMHO big pub chains will generally struggle to hire and retain really good people, especially managers and chefs, who are likely to want more control over their own output than the centralised approach will allow. And while this is true for chains that grew organically: "in fact it should be that chain would logically mean good, being reflective of a successful and popular product being expanded out/quality of the brand meaning something to customers, knowing what to expect etc" that's not how any of the big pub chains came into being. I'd love the Dog to be a really great pub, but the odds are against it. I'd settle for it being a decent pub, so let's hope it can make it that far.

The problem with M&B pubs is that all the key decisions are made centrally by people who don't work in their pubs. This is a quote from the M&B website: "Every year, we spend over ?1 billion across eleven key categories including food, drink, technology and corporate facilities. Over the next few years we expect some of our brands to more than double in size, so we want to develop long-term relationships with fewer but bigger players." So how much control does the pub have over the food and drink that its customers get? Close to zero, it would seem. What's the incentive for really good people to want to work in their pubs? Similarly close to zero, you would think. NB - this is what the M&B website says about its "Castle" pubs, of which the Dog is one: "If you like your pint served with real personality, pull up a chair in one of our eclectic urban pubs. Each is decidedly individual, with a character to suit its community and an independence that attracts regulars as diverse and discerning as the beers on tap." Two other pubs in the Castle stable are The Spaniards in Hampstead and the White Horse in Parsons Green (the Sloaney Pony) - both famous old pubs. This is a quote from the food section of the Spaniards' website: "There?s nothing quite like a juicy, slow-cooked, gravy-drenched roast on a Sunday afternoon, or a favourite pub classic such as sustainably caught cod and chips. Whether you fancy a quick bite to eat or a traditional Sunday roast, here at The Spaniards Inn there is something for everyone. We serve delicious, freshly prepared meals, changing our menu daily to make sure you?re getting the freshest, seasonal ingredients." And from the White Horse website: "There?s nothing quite like a juicy, slow-cooked, gravy-drenched roast on a Sunday afternoon, or a favourite pub classic such as sustainably caught cod and chips. Whether you fancy a quick bite to eat or a traditional Sunday roast, here at The White Horse there is something for everyone. We serve delicious, freshly prepared meals, changing our menu daily to make sure you?re getting the freshest, seasonal ingredients." The Dog isn't a pub - it's one unit in a national mass catering operation. Say it ain't so, Greg?

"So you are assuming that Indian Restaurants are using Cheap poor quality food produce and a place serving Quiche to be using good quality food produce. I would challenge you to produce the mixed grill dish for ?3.50 even with cheap produce. Have you been to Memsaab? Yes. Fine. how was it. ? No. Then Shut up about it (Polite version)" What I'm saying is if you charge ?9.95 for a dish the food cost will be about ?3, and if the dish contains lots of meat, then it will be cheap meat. If you happen to know that your favourite curry house operates an entirely different approach to pricing than every other restaurant then you can tell us, I'm sure. Also, I'm not assuming that the tart place uses decent (and therefore comparatively expensive) ingredients but just saying that if they do their food cost percentage will be similar (and if you look at the menu many of their dishes include smoked salmon, avocado, Parma ham etc., which tends to support what I'm saying). I would add that if they don't use decent quality stuff, I suspect they will fail fairly quickly. Despite Louisa's predictable demented ramblings* not many people are going to pay ?8.75 for a slice of quiche and salad unless it's good, and that means good ingredients - with simple food there's nowhere to hide crap produce. So once again "Dulwich Fox" you're talking out of your rear. (Polite version) *Unsurprising if she drinks ?3 wine.

"Tandoori Chicken..Lamb Chops.. Chicken Tikka, Lamb Tikka.. King Prawn.. & Sheek Kebab. Served with Large Salad and a Whole Nann bread. ?9.95 all in." Food cost of this dish is unlikely to be more than ?3, ?3.50 at the most. That means cheap meat (and even cheaper prawn). It's not a criticism, it's just a fact - that's how the restaurant business works. I would expect food cost of a slice of quiche with salad to be a bit lower as a a percentage, but not that much, especially if they are using good quality eggs, cheese etc.

Taylor Swift - We are never, ever getting back together Lethal Bizzle - Fester Skank

Usually you investigate and gather evidence before charging anyone. That way you don't end up looking like an idiot when you come in front of a judge, who will not be swayed by how terrible the event was if you don't actually have a case in law.

"Your opinion is always valid for you." But I recognise that that is exactly what it is - an opinion. And I'm willing to discuss it, and who knows, I might even be persuaded that it should change. Millions of people just voted for the Tories, and they are the largest party in the Commons. But to you, those people are 'wrong', because TM (like Thatcher before her) is an 'ogre'. Which is a statement. So there. It's not just valid, it's right. And by the way, Irish people can't be British. As I said, not very persuasive. And not very impressive.

"It is a statement - not an argument." That's an interesting distinction. So if I said "Lordship 516 demonstrates a shaky grasp on political and economic reality, and his/her prose style also leaves a lot to be desired", a view with which you would presumably disagree, an appropriate response from me would be "It's a statement, not an argument"?

"This person is an ogre of the highest Thatcherite order." So TM should apologise to you for having the temerity to hold different political beliefs? Not very persuasive.

"Labour will walk an election sooner or later" This the big question, isn't it? although the story of the election quite rightly was a disaster for May/Tories and a triumph for Corbyn/Labour, the result in basic terms was a Tory win - short of a majority but more seats than Labour + SNP + Lib Dem + Plaid + Greens i.e. the effective opposition. May is going to have a job being an effective PM but there's no reason to think a minority Labour govt would even get a Queen's Speech through the Commons. So the question for the Labour party is, can we get another 60 seats with Corbyn and his manifesto if we really all pull together? The questions for the Tories are a bit more substantial - where can we find new leader who's not likely to be very bit as unpopular as May, and also what are our policies going to be now it's clear nobody likes the current ones? Plus WTF is our position on Brexit? Ironically prob best all round if May stays on for a while at least and we get govt back up and running. Is there really any appetite outside of activists for another GE?

I, even though living in the 'cosmopolis' have serious doubts about whether, for example, the economy will implode following a May victory, and even graver doubts about the assistance we can draw from Nietzsche in explaining Jeremy Corbyn's (likely) failure to triumph in this election. In all likelihood life will go undramatically on and Corbyn will eventually shuffle off back to his former life of instinctive protest and political and economic unreality.

"I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then." Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's not really govt. - the AG is ultimately responsible for all prosecutions carried out by the Crown, and has a number of specified roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all the work is done by the CPS and the hearing conducted by independent counsel. And the decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the judiciary, so not sure what your point re heteronomy is.