DaveR

I do read your posts. I just don't see much sense in them. You say there is a 'bike problem'. You talk about 'mutual respect'. You also have some weird thing going about Uri Geller which tbh I'm not even trying to understand. I have said (and have always said, and believe me this subject has been done to death) that (i) it's a good idea for everybody to use the road sensibly and (ii) the overwhelming threat to anybody's safety out there is from motor vehicles, not bikes. There's no contradiction between the two. They make perfect sense. Except to you.

"INMV 1st enforce the existing laws for cars & bikes. Do it in a way that sees infringements treated seriously" Enforce all existing laws? All the time? And with equal seriousness, regardless of the infringement? What an excellent notion. Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, most people favour a risk-based approach to enforcement. Hence focussing on motor vehicles (which kill you if they hit you) rather than bikes (which don't). I simplify slightly, but (even) you get the point.

"DaveR, there is an accepted fallacy that the demand is not there. There is the demand - really, there is. But if you're repeatedly disappointed and as oimissus attests to, you simply give up. Moreover, as a non veg, sometimes you just fancy a non meat/poultry/fish alternative that has had the same thought and skill and is as delicious as the kobe beef, fillet mignon, cornish game hen/posh kiev or dover sole/monkfish. Just saying that it would be nice for non meat eaters to come away not feeling like they've drawn the short straw - again." re demand, I just don't know, but I'm not entirely persuaded. Me + my friends does not necessarily = a sustainable market. re kobe beef and dover sole, I'm not sure I get your point. Neither of these call for more than elementary skill from the cook - they are just exceptional quality raw ingredients. The veggie equivalent would be something like a perfectly grown rare breed plain roasted carrot. I'm not sure how many people would order that.

Very few chefs are vegetarian except in specialist vegetarian restaurants hence less interest in meat free dishes. I don't know what proportion of diners are veggie but like Jeremy said, if the demand is really there you would expect things to change. I know hardly any vegetarians; certainly fewer now than when I was in my twenties, say. Having said that, I suspect a bit of self-selection is at work.

SJ, how much experience do you have of an alternative method of public health care provision? I don't think anybody is saying there's nothing to worry about. Many people are saying that the combination of tough economic times and particular challenges to funding health and social care provision with an ageing population, greater expectations etc. means there is a serious question to be asked about whether the NHS will ever be an efficient model for delivering these services. That's worrying, particularly when so many otherwise sensible people come over all theological as soon as the NHS is mentioned. BTW, if we want to throw Telegraph headlines in by way of advancing the debate, how about this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10029625/Ringfenced-NHS-budget-creates-illusion-nothing-needs-to-change.html

Mourinho back at Chelsea: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22574810 They've got a good squad and presumably money available, no Fergie and City with a new manager - what odds Chelsea for a period of dominance in the PL?

and your point is, SJ?

"Anyway, as I said "My beef is that cycling has become the holy cow for London" Even in the face of obvious/dangerous infringements, there's no crackdown, nothing. Like it would be an admission of failure. But the motorised vehicle users get penalised further, so the divide is drawn by those above who want policy over policing." If you think there is evidence of a need for a 'crackdown', feel free to tell us. The issue here is enforcing (even in a small way) a policy that's already in place i.e. having advanced stop lines. As I understand it, your objection to this is its penalising motorists when cyclists are the real problem. Wow, nobody's ever said that before. You have a car, and a bike. So do I. But you know the truth, and I am ranting in a vacuum. Seriously, spare me.

"Bad motorist-good cyclist la la la " Not so much this as "private motorist (especially if alone in car) bad, anything else good" Which is a perfectly sensible transport policy for the Mayor of London to adopt. Driving a car in inner London when there is a viable alternative means of transport is an inherently selfish and anti-social act, and the punishment for it is getting stuck in traffic and getting stung for tickets. I have a car, I use it, I moan about traffic and tickets, but deep down I know the above to be true. And so do you.

Lou, did they fail to see you because you were behind them? Honestly, these people who don't have eyes in the backs of their heads!

FWIW I don't think there's much point in trying to make semantic distinctions about whether to be described as a terrorist you need to belong to a group of a particular size or with some type of structure. What is beyond doubt is that the kind of murders carried out in Woolwich are precisely what were and are intended by the individuals and organisations who preach and disseminate a particular brand of extreme hate-driven Islam. Of course it's not representative of Islam as a whole but neither is it entirely unconnected with mainstream Islam, at least as practised in some Middle Eastern/South Asian countries. Consequently, to react to these murders with a shrug of the shoulders - it's not real terrorism and it's nothing to do with Islam - is almost as stupid as blaming it on Muslims in general. The ongoing radicalisation of even a very small number of British based Muslims is a real problem that needs to be addressed, by the authorities and also by those who are witnessing it happen. The latter will most often (although not exclusively) be amongst the wider community of British Muslims, which is why it is so important that there is no equivocation about what people's obligations should be.

It is an interesting article but I think some of his analysis is weak. In particular, this: "One problem with the construction of the random fanatic, is that virtually any form of incomphrehensible act of violence ? a school shooting, a crazed knife attack ? can be redefined as an act of political terrorism. That is why far too many people cannot resist the temptation of defining the tragedy in Woolwich as an act of political terrorism." I don't think it is too difficult to distinguish between the personal grudge against society that appears to drive some acts of multiple murder and other broadly politically driven acts. Furedi also says this: "It is unlikely that the two men who perpetrated this despicable act of violence have been busy reading al-Qaeda?s terror manual. However there is little doubt that they are thoroughly immersed in the cultural values of reality entertainment." On that point I just think he is wrong; I would be amazed if the two individuals responsible for the Woolwich murders do not have a history of radicalisation based on exposure to materials emanating from extremist Muslim individuals and organisations, and that is what is likley to have ultimately driven the act, rather than watching too much TOWIE.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/motorists-and-cyclists-united-against-pedestrians-2013052269600

To go back to your earlier question, framing your campaign around children is annoying because (i) it's cliched (ii) it's disingenuous and (iii) it obscures the real and serious issues about the sexualisation of children and childhood. Just stick to the basic point that it's absurd that a mass circulation national paper in 2013 still has pictures of topless girls in it, and that at the very least it promotes the objectification of women in a way that is inappropriate and potentially damaging.

Chelsea 2 Everton 1 Liverpool 3 QPR 0 Man City 2 Norwich 0 Newcastle 1 Arsenal 2 Southampton 1 Stoke 1 Swansea 2 Fulham 0 Tottenham 2 Sunderland 0 West Brom 1 Man Utd 3 West Ham 2 Reading 0 Wigan 2 Aston Villa 2

The point about the cost impact of reducing the number of stations is that (as many people have already observed) arguing that there should be no cuts is just not sustainable, and the figures give an idea of the potential savings achievable by having fewer stations, even if they operate the same number of machines. I don't see how you can say that LFB are relying on people being taken in by stats, and then ask us to rely on your stats. That having been said, if it is right that call outs in Southwark are high, that should be reflected in planning. Quoting stats by borough does point up anotehr interesting question i.e. should fire services be organised nationally? Coincidentally, see BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22564390 I was interested in this quote: "When I was a firefighter, fire deaths in the home were 700 and 800 a year. Now, they're 180 a year. "It's a really good news story, but the service itself must adapt and change, not only to maintain that fire safety and prevention front, but to adapt its service. "So why have - even though those fires have gone down 40% - the number of firefighters remained broadly the same. "It's a question that the local authorities and fire authorities will need to address and need to answer." The Fire Brigades Union, as expected, dismissed the report. That is why they are not gaining public support.

Presumably the knock on effect has already been accounted for in the new attendance times you quoted? I note that all of the attendance times are still shorter than the national average (7.5 minutes), and that over the last ten years attendance times have increased by 15 per cent but fatalities have fallen by a third. I also note that the difference in cost between running seven appliances at four stations and the same number at six stations is ?1 million pa (?7 million vs ?8 million). I genuinely can't see anything in the consultation to suggest that station closures are necessarily the wrong thing to do.

This should probably be in the news thread, but it did make me laugh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22542222

"Looks like I'll have to settle for Europa. Can't see me overhauling DaveR's 5 point lead and nicking that last champs league spot" If we finish level on points will there have to be a play-off?

"Ha ha - bloody fair-weather playa... I am 4th (in the 100% category)" That got me thinking - what would my score be if every time I missed a week and got a maxxi, I'd played and got my average score? Answer - 16 points more. Just out of interest, I did the same for El Pibe. Answer - 12 points more. Sorry, maxxi. The table doesn't lie.

"There are many reasons why a child who has SEN may need to be driven to school besides the reasons of distance, going on to work etc that any parent may face." That may be true, but it is still no answer, unless you think, for example, that these account for all/the majority of kids currently being driven to local schools. As has been said, at the point of entry it's likely that all kids will live < 5-600 metres from the school. Some will genuinely need to be driven, for various reasons. The majority won't, and I think it's a fair perception that many of those who currently are don't need to be - it's certainly my impression from dropping my own kids off. In those circumstances it's difficult to argue seriously against LadyD's basic point i.e. for some parents driving their kids to school is just putting their own, selfish interests above the wider interests of their community (and perhaps the interests of their own kids).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22537372 Premier League rules require a play-off, it seems

"Duncan Disorderly. That I'd like to see." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22525518

I don't think this is a prudishness thing, although that is the explanation for why we don't have loads of topless women on TV, like in Germany (that's why the one TV show that did was called Eurotrash, I guess). I did read the petition linked in the OP and I think the way it is put is bang on: "George Alagiah doesn?t say, ?And now let?s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington?s bare breasts,? in the middle of the 6 O? Clock News, does he, Dominic?" Also, it's good to see that they are not petitioning for a ban, but rather to persuade the Sun that Page 3's time has passed. If the campaigners can resist the temptation to resort to "will nobody think of the children?" they have my full support.

I'm essentially sympathetic to the argument that Page 3 is a relic from a bygone age and has no place in a modern newspaper. But that's as far as it goes, and stuff like this: "The recent promotions they did with Lego were a really quite sinister example of introducing sexualised images to kids" is rubbish and can only undermine the campaign. There are undoubtedly more important targets if you are concerned about either the objectification of women or sexualisation of kids.