DaveR

"I recently attended an event in Hackney to raise awareness...." That's your problem, right there. Attending awareness-raising events in Hackney has been scientifically proven to be seriously damaging to the critical faculties. The most common symptom is for people with no scientific knowledge at all to google research papers and then start making confident assertions about "the absence of scientific consensus" and "the precautionary principle". The cure (happily enough) is to chill out, for example by watching a lot of football on tv, preferably whilst having a few beers.

"I looked up stats on missing/abducted kids in the UK and the number is a lot, yet we rarely hear about them. " It depends on what you mean by a lot. Missing kids, there are a lot, because that includes anyone under 18 reported missing. Reported abductions run at about 500 per year, but that is everything reported to police as abduction; usually reported crime figures include those subsequently cleared up as 'no crime' i.e. police conclude that crime initially reported was not committed (a practice widely abused, but not often, I would think in cases of child abduction). And most actual abduction cases arise out of parental disputes. It is undoubtedly true that what is reported is a small number of cases that appear to have news value (and not only middle class kids - there's plenty of mileage in 'scummy underclass' stories in certain sections of the press) but it is nevertheless a rare crime. Some years ago, a friend's daughter was invited to a birthday party. The plan was for the group of kids to go horseriding, then back to the house for tea, and then camp out in the garden for the night, with the kids in one tent and Dad and brother in another tent. Most of the parents were happy with the horseriding, but wouldn't allow the camp out, because they were worried about a madman/paedophile. As an entirely irrational approach to risk I thought that was hard to beat. I have no idea what happended to M McCann - it's difficult enough to be sure about a case of any complexity when you have all the evidence, because (to coin a phrase) unless it's obvious, then it's really not. But the idea that the parents are completely responsible whatever happened is absolutely bonkers - though of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is bonkers.

Hazel Blears came out publicly yesterday to support his line on extremism in schools. Many of the more thoughtful commentators on education (teachers and opposition politicians included) have supported many of the measures he has introduced. Knee jerk opposition from self-interested teachers and parody urban lefties (see Quids above) is a sign he's doing something right. I think recently he's been caught up in the reaction to UKIP/pressure from the Tory right, hence the rubbish about British vs foreign literature, but generally he's a very effective SoS. He does get a lot of stick on the EDF, but little in the way of coherent argument about actual policies.

I would recommend biting the bullet and forking over the extra for Q bots. It's a way of going to the front of the queue on the most popular rides, and the difference on a busy day is massive.

Bells, as above, and Potter Perrin in Streatham. I reckon PP have a bigger range and service is very good - when it turned out we had ordered a wrong part they exchanged it without any problems, and delivered the new part the next day.

Richmond Park is great but the S Circular is pretty grim. I like to go into town over B'friars Bridge, along the river to Putney Bridge (going through Chelsea Harbour), over Putney Bridge and then Upper Richmond Road to the Park. Not exactly quiet though - not even in the park

"he failed at Ipswich..." massive understatement re Roy Keane. Once he realised shouting at players didn't work, he had no plan B

Did I mention that I'm really pleased a cinema will be opening in ED? Even if, or possibly particularly if, it is boycotted by some of the posters on this thread.

Have a look at bamboo; v hard wearing and reasonable price

Btw, I'm very pleased that a cinema will be opening in ED

I query whether 'fair wage', 'living wage' and 'the London Living Wage' should instinctively be treated as equivalent, as many posters here are happy to do. The LLW is ?8.80 per hour, calculated by reference to needs for all different types of people in different circumstances (working full time and part time, with or without children etc.). To say that any lower hourly rate for any job in London is not a 'fair wage' is just not sensible.

"The Snake - Al wilson" I thought I was the only person left in the world with this on my playlist. Also 25 Miles by Edwin Starr plus Brimful of Asha and The Noisettes - Never Forget You

"A lot of people in this country have gone out and voted for them, which highlights that their central issue of Europe is one that people feel strongly about. Okay, so it's completely unclear what they think about anything else, but that's not really the point, I don't think anyone actually expects them to win real power, they are voting for the issue of Europe, end of." As Loz said, when UKIP voters are asked what they think is important, Europe usually comes way down the list. UKIP have put the EU forward as a proxy for all the ills of the modern world, and invited a protest vote, which they have duly got. I don't think all UKIP candidates or voters are racist, but I admit to struggling with stupid. It doesn't take much critical judgment to work out that UKIP don't have any credible policies and have a pretty high nutter count amongst both candidates and supporters, so voting for them seems kind of stupid to me.

"Hardly any London businesses do, only around 300 at the last count." 300 is, I think, the number of employers formally accredited. The GLA report reveals that 88% of full time workers in London are paid the LLW or more, but that falls to just over 50% for part time workers. I think the idea of calculating and publishing a LLW is a good one, because it puts forward a more realistic view of London living costs than the NMW, and is a good aspirational target for employers. But a single figure based on living costs across all types of households, and which is heavily skewed by the impact of benefits, is always going to be slightly arbitrary when applied to a specific job in a specific place. Consequently it's a bit foolish IMHO to treat it as a gold standard to judge the ethics of businesses.

8 years mean eligible for parole after 4 (or 3 and a bit with a tag), automatic parole after 5 yrs 4 months. I think 8 years is appealable tho'

It's also surprising how different the pricing models are between different insurers for the same cover, plus insurers don't always want your business and will sometimes give you a very high price to make you go elsewhere. Because there are so many houses that have suffered subsidence in the past there are plenty of insurers who will take on the business, but you are unlikely to be able to find them from comparison sites, so you need to do old fashioned ringing around.

"It's just fashion - contrived and conforming maybe - but that's always been a large part of fashion too hasn't it? Is 29 the offical cut-off for not being interested in fashion? I didn't realise." I've always thought fashion pretty much amounts to "last year this shirt was cool, but now it's shit. This year this shirt is cool, next year it will be shit.". In that very simple way, you're never too young to not be interested in fashion. Similarly 'lifestyle'. As far as I can see, lifestyle means that there is presumed to be some invisible correlation between where I live, what music I listen to, what car I drive, and where I buy my pants. No thanks. I just like trying new stuff, and I'm grateful when some new trend wheels around and whatever it is turns out to be great. But I'm very happy to p!ss all over stuff that's fashionable but crap, because that's another pleasure of being 40...give or take a few years.

"I think there must be a period of at least a few years between "too old for skinny jeans" and Victor Meldrew." Roughly 23 - 73 yo, I reckon, so a few years. The annoying thing about hipsters (or any other tribe adherents) post 30 is that the combination of contrivance and conformity obscures the individual completely; it makes is easy to conclude (probably completely unfairly) that someone is probably a bit of a bore and a bit of a nob, which is not a winning combination. And the great thing about being 40 something is that you can do the stuff you know you like, get nostalgic about the stuff you used to like, and still look forward to the stuff you plan to try.

I find it interesting that the only substantive criticism* of the head at Goodrich concerns his willingness (or otherwise) to be available to individual parents, either because they have a gripe, or because they want to audition him for the role of head teacher to their offspring, or because they seem to be reassured if he can be seen grinning at the gates of a morning. I don't want to be unfair to the man, but is it possible that he has decided that spending a lot of time hearing from parents is unlikely to make him better able to do his job, and, scandalous though the suggestion may seem, that he may be right? Nobody wants a return to the days when professional people were remote and the concerns of ordinary folks could be dismissed out of hand, but I think the current level of self-absorption shown by many parents has swung matters too far in the opposite direction. Everybody is free to make their own choice, of course, but I would suggest that looking at results (in the very broadest sense) is the best way of judging a school and a head teacher. *except the recently departed pupil who objected to the fact that the school umiform rules were actually enforced.

"how influential the head is on the direction and culture of their school." Re Goodrich, the answer is very influential. Not everybody agress with all of his decisions but my clear impression is that he is very much in control. That's not the same as being accessible to parents, particularly for face to face meetings, but in my limited experience he always answers emails, for example. FWIW, he's pretty visible to the pupils. I may be unusual, but I don't expect the head teacher to be available on demand to meet parents. There are 600 odd kids at Goodrich, and tbh I'd rather the head prioritises dealing with the staff, the budgets, the governors, the buildings, the LA etc., and I would expect him to delegate a lot to class teachers, KS group leaders and deputy heads. When he first took on the job there was an open meeting with parents where he pretty much said "I've done this before, I know what I'm doing, I'll explain broadly what I'm doing and why, but my priority is to get on with the job". As far as I can see, that's what he has done.

If the argument is that companies should stop manufacturing in developing countries, or that they should pay wages equivalent to Western wages, then it's not going to happen, and would be positively harmful for lots of countries and millions of people. There's a fair amount of evidence that both wages and working conditions tend to be better in factories in developing countries operated by or contracted to multinationals than in purely local businesses, and that factory workers are better off than subsistence farmers whatever the working conditions. I think enough consumers do care (or at least companies believe that enough care) that the most effective short term action is for journalists and others to keep exposing bad practice and embarrassing the businesses associated with it. This is largely what has been responsible for big companies adopting codes of conduct re overseas contracts, and the key is to get them to stick to them. It would be more effective if there was a legal obligation for UK companies (broadly defined) to adopt a code of conduct, audit compliance with it, and publish the results. fyi http://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/

SJ now says: "There is nothing objectively wrong with owning more than one property" SJ on page 30: "Wanting to own your own property is natural Wanting to own more than one? Slippage" and "It's not quite looting. But it's not so far off" My comment about China was a specific response to this: "Access to shelter shouldn't be left to markets" Note - we're not talking about houses anymore - we're talking about 'shelter'. Something touchy feely and human rightsy. This kind of precious nonsense needs to be ridiculed for the undergraduate balls that it is.

"Market solutions? Is that not what's got us into this mess? What's the incentive for house-builders to build hundreds of thousands of houses that are needed? It would drive prices down as the come onto the market making them less profit. I don't think the "market" is in the business of solving issues based on need. Merely on what makes money. Access to shelter shouldn't be left to markets. It's too important. And is clearly failing currently." Ah yes - some things are too important to be provided by individuals - it has to be done by the state. That's been tried before, in China and the Eastern Bloc, and is still in progress in Cuba and Venezuela. Let's just say it hasn't gone so well. House builders build, and will build as much as they can, given the opportunity. When land with planning permission is scarce, it's expensive, and consequently even if the prices for houses are high, margins aren't. If land is made available it will get developed - that's why the big builders are constantly lobbying to get planning rules eased. Obviously they'd prefer to throw up massive new estates all over the green belt, but tbh they'll build wherever they can.

Tapered CGT on profits above a certain threshold is much more sensible than a straight wealth tax on unrealised gains. Otherwise, the debate that has dominated (on and off) the last 20 odd pages about the 'morality' of BTL and multiple home ownership seems to me pointless. As has already been observed, if a private rental sector exists them somebody has to be in the business of owning and letting property - who it is and how and why they do it is irrelevant. If you want to argue in favour of rent caps (which I would oppose) or greater security of tenure (which I would support) then whether it's individual 'greedy' BTL landlords or institutional investors who are affected is irrelevant. The issues in the housing market are still fundamentally market issues - limited supply and inflated demand - and the solutions are market solutions i.e. more building and/or redevelopment of existing stock, discouraging land banking and vacant property, stopping stupid mortgage lending etc. In the longer term the real key is to get economic development going outside London and the SE through infrastructure spending and incentives to business.

Anything by Miele - best brand by miles.