DaveR

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

Does driving a white van make you a mind-reader? Only during rush hour in Blackfriars, or more generally?

I also see cyclists after dark with no lights/reflectors, and it's obviously stupid and dangerous. Having said that, it's not clear to me how you can reach this conclusion: "But there's a minority who seem to have a fekk you attitude - I dare you to knock me off." just from driving by.

"Your example - I am not going to take your alcohol because you seem like decent types, whereas I AM going to take your alcohol cos you seem like a scrote - is never going to work in real life." ....except that is exactly how real life works. Law enforcement involves a lot of exercising discretion, and would be unworkable without it. That is also the reason why there is guidance on how discretion should be exercised. It does mean that people who are on the wrong end of stupid decisions should take on the tiresome business of making an official fuss about it, because that is how decision making gets better. If you are properly interested then make a FOI request to Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich, and the Met, asking them to disclose the guidance they give on the exercise of these powers.

"DaveR: admittedly the OP is not about to be shaved then gassed and incinerated. But the OP's feeling of being discriminated against and effectively forced-out of her property is surely undeniable. The OP's analogy may not be perfect or appropriate, but not to the extent where she must be considered as deserving the situation the Govt has placed her under ?" What the OP is actualy saying (explicitly) is: "I will not allow myself to be put to ground in an area that (a) i dont know and (b) i dont want to be" i.e. I insist that the taxpayer continue to fund me living in the property I want, in the area I want. To compare that to genocide displays a pretty breathtaking lack of perspective, and in fact might be taken to be representative of an attitude to a beneifts system which tbh is unlikely to be supportable economically. I don't know the OP and it may very well be that she has been shamefully treated - but I'm not going to make that assumption automatically because of what 'the government is doing to disabled people'.

Is there any evidence of the powers actually being abused? The Home Office guidance says: "It is the intention that the extended confiscation powers provided by the Licensing Act should be used against those who are, through their drinking, causing a public nuisance or likely to do so" An arbitrary exercise of the power - confiscation from your shopping, for example - is very likely to be unlawful.

"now i feel i am being hounded like the jewish people were." = lost any sympathy from me

Other than housing benefit, I can't see that benefits and unemployment are of any real relevance to the particular issue here. Moving unemployed people out of high rent areas and freeing up housing for the private sector is likely to drive overall rents up, not down, because demand is so strong. It seems to me the issue in the short term is not reducing the market cost of London housing - that's not achievable, in my view - but mitigating the effects. In the longer term the answer has to be freeing up as much existing stock as possible and building more houses, although a significant upturn in the economic prospects of UK regions outside London and the South East would help.

"it was just interesting how the 'free rider' principles heavily influence such a large proportion of my beliefs" I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you believe in the theory then you are more likely to be someone who believes in, and largely adheres to, the 'mini morality' of every day co-operation, and consequently more likely to be offended by perceived free riding wherever you see it. On the other hand, unsurprisingly, i think your analysis of the EU situation is entirely wrong - the free riders of the recent past were the weaker members of the eurozone.

If you look at average rental yields it just doesn't support a polemical attack on supposedly greedy landlords. When houses are expensive to buy, they will be expensive to rent. Prices are demand driven, and demand for London housing is driven by the wealth and income of people who want to live here, so in a sense this is a symptom of the success of the city. The housing benefit system is ridiculous, and sustains high rents without any benefit to the public. To an extent this is already being addressed, but there is simultaneously a need for a proper strategy for the role of social housing in ensuring that, for example, key workers (widely defined) who keep the essential functions of the city going are supported. I note that the Guardian article cited recognises that no-one appears to think that rent controls are the answer, but if you look at the Shelter proposals (there's a link in the article), many of them are pretty sensible.

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

I've been watching all the Star Wars films again recently with the kids. They are absolutely loving them - all of them - whereas I am largely relying on nostalgia for the old ones, and am frankly embarrassed by most of the acting and plotting in the later ones. If I were brutally honest, they don't even get into the top 50 films-I-have watched-with-my-kids.

I never saw Moore, Charlton or Greaves play, unfortunately. I saw George Best run out for Fulham, and Cruyff in his last season playing at Barcelona,but neither were anything like the players they had been before. I saw Cantona for United, Bergkamp and Henry for Arsenal, Zola for Chelsea, and they stood out as great players. I'd be hard-pushed to say that any English footballer that I've seen play was one of the 'greats' in that sense, of standing out from all their peers. The closest, honestly, is probably either Shearer, because in his prime he was the best goalscorer playing in England by a mile, or Beckham, because in a few games he just took over and changed the whole game.

They are obviously spending a lot of dosh on advertising at the moment (Messi and Kobe Bryant), and I read that they won some kind of award last year, but I have also heard a few stories about lots of cancellations and unfriendly cabin crew. Anybody with any recent experience flying with them, especially long-haul? Their fares to the Far East are very good currently, but I don't want to find myself stranded in Istanbul with a hostile Turkish stewardess.

Crusty white bread, butter, lots of well-done but not crispy streaky, brown sauce (preferably HP). Or the same contents in a white crusty roll. Or the same but with a fried egg in a slightly bigger roll. Once in a while have ketchup but then revert to brown sauce.

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

"I'm confused as to what your motivation might be to try and pick a rather pointless and arcane fight?" H, I'm entirely accustomed to you making all manner of confident claims, patronising a variety of people at will, and generally assuming an air of knowing authority on whatever subject takes your fancy. As I've said before, it's actually quite entertaining. On this occasion, you said to whoever the other poster was: "This isn't a debate between you and me, it's simply the law." and you were completely wrong about what the law is. I was just pointing that out. Then you made some kind of odd reference to references, and said "that's not the law, it's just the opinion of the court" so I thought for clarity it was worth repeating that (and this isn't complicated) you just got it wrong. I don't see any other issue here.

Back on topic, and in no particular order, my favourite places to eat out in ED and surrounds: Silk Road, Koz, the Palmerston, the cafe next to the shoe shop, Hong Kong City, Ganapati, Il Mirto, Homemade. Other food highlights: Blackbird bakery (I've never had anything that wasn't really good), the banh mi guy on North X Rd, Mootown, and William Rose pork pies.

"That sounds like a judgement in a particular case DaveR - it doesn't seem to cite the law but the opinion of the court." It's the Court of Appeal, referring to a previous court judgment. In a common law jurisdiction, that is 'the law'. Here's another one: "A comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant does not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence. However proof of such motivation may be evidence, sometimes compelling evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred." Both were cited by the Court of Appeal in a recent appeal against a libel finding against the Irish News in respect of a restaurant review. You can find the judgment here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/nie/cases/NICA/2008/14.html&query=goodfellas+and+libel&method=boolean The law has been constantly changing - that's what happens in a common law system - but your assertion that "There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person" has always been wrong, as far as I know. It's very sweet of you to offer to check my references, but I would observe that I posted what (to anyone familiar with it) was obviously an excerpt from an appellate court judgment, and your reference was to the Guardian.

BTW, on the other point, liability of the forum essentially depends on whether it is a publisher or a distributor - a newspaper or a newspaper shop. If the latter, you have a defence if you can show that you didn't know the libellous comment was there, and your lack of knowledge was not due to negligence. I think the EDF would have a reasonable chance of establishing that they are a distributor, and can point to a record of taking down potentially libellous posts, which would help with establishing the defence. However, I can perfectly understand why they might want to minimise the risk by asking people not to post about businesses that are quick to threaten litigation.

H, you are right about this: "This isn't a debate between you and me, it's simply the law." But wrong about this: "There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person. Your polar bear vomit would not be considered reasonable criticism as it would be considered to be so extreme as to be motivated by malice." I defer to the Court of Appeal: "The final requirement for the defence of fair comment is that the comment must be one which an honest person might make or an opinion that might genuinely be held. The opinion need not be reasonable in the sense of being temperate. The criticism does not have to be moderately expressed. It can be couched in pungent or even offensive language? see Keays v. Guardian Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1565 QB at [21]. The comment may be exaggerated, even grossly exaggerated and prejudiced. As Lord Esher MR said in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QB 275 at 280/1: - "Mere exaggeration, or even gross exaggeration, would not make the comment unfair. However wrong the opinion expressed may be in point of truth, or however prejudiced the writer, it may still be within the prescribed limit. The question which the jury must consider is this - would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however exaggerated or obstinate his views, have said that which this criticism has said of the work which is criticised?" I wouldn't start offering legal advice if I were you.

In my experience there are (very broadly) two main types of French expats in London. The first are those who came because a freer labour market and more dynamic economy (in some sectors at least) make the prospects here much better than in France. The second are those who came because they work for very successful French businesses that have established themselves in the UK, ironically often out-competing domestic UK firms in the relevant market. Any wider economic lessons to be drawn from an Anglo-French comparison ought to look at both sides of that coin. On the original point re national debt, the fact that the OECD observed that WORLD recovery is slowing suggests that nobody should rush to judgment on the validity of the current policy of aggressively pursuing deficit reduction based on current UK no-growth figures. The essentials of that debate haven't changed, and the current evidence is hardly conclusive. In any event, the idea that growth would be stimulated by a land tax is laughable.

This manufacturer is on the exempt list: http://www.dingley-dell.com/domestic_pizza_ovens

Aston Villa 1 Newcastle 1 QPR 0 Man City 2 Stoke 1 Wigan 0 Sunderland 1 Swansea 2 Arsenal 2 Liverpool 1 Everton 2 West Brom 0 Norwich 1 Tottenham 2 Fulham 2 West Ham 0 Man Utd 4 Southampton 0 Reading 1 Chelsea 2

I've never given either of my kids any supplements of any sort. They have a good diet, and the evidence for any beneficial effects of further supplements appears to be very thin. Conversely, I think that by routinely giving supplements there is a risk of 'medicalising' everyday life i.e. encouraging the belief that taking pills every day is normal and helpful, which I think is undesirable. It looks like I'm in the minority though.