DaveR

Just to be clear, the police have a specific power under the Mental Health Act to remove someone from a public place to a place of safety if it appears that they need immediate treatment or care. Where a person may be a danger to others or themselves calling the police is the right thing to do; they are better equipped to deal with the situation than anyone else.

http://www.yellohvillage.co.uk/destination/sea

"On the subject of cost, what does everyone consider 'reasonable' to pay for a 2 week holiday with 2 kids in the summer holidays?" If you go self-catering in France/Spain/Portugal/Italy, and book the elements separately, I would say ?800 - ?1200 for flights, ?1200 - 2000 for accommodation and ?250 for a car, so I guess between ?2k and ?3k. In order of expense, cheapest first, I would say Portugal/Spain/France/Italy.

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

"And is it just me but I am not comfortable with taking little ones to Portugal? I know bad things can happen anywhere but this destination doesn't enthuse me" Is that a reference to M McCann? Kind of harsh to write off a whole country! Last summer we went here: http://www.visit-sao-martinho-do-porto.com/html/ing-index.html and had a fabulous holiday. Compared to recent visits to other European destinations it was properly cheap in terms of day-to-day expenses - in seafront cafes we were paying 60c for a coffee, 5 euros for the lunch time dish of the day, 1 euro for an ice cream. It was sunny every day but never too hot - peaked in the mid 80s and was cool at night. We flew to Lisbon and booked an apartment through owners direct or holiday lettings - I forget which - but that also worked out signficantly cheaper in total than either the Algarve or France/Spain/Italy.

"DaveR to quote you...." It's not my quote - it's a quote from the debate between food/environmental scientists that I reproduced. Those scientists said that using 'local' as a label is less helpful than carrying out a proper analysis of resource input vs nutritional output. That seems sensible to me. You seem to disagree, backed up by some vague example of sugar snap peas from Kenya. I'm not persuaded. And this: "Only our wealth enables us to afford what the exporting nations cannot, effectively stealing the food from the poor." is rubbish. In pure economic terms, poor countries moving from subsistence farming to cash crops for export means an increase in national income. How that additional income is distributed, and other impacts that the change might have make it too simplistic to see that as an inherently desirable thing, but again, emotive nonsense is no substitute for rational analysis.

From a Sense about Science page, referenced in another thread: "First of all, we need to realize that polarized "us versus them" debates in agriculture are harmful, and distract us from solving bigger food and environment problems. The debates about organic and GM crops are something of a sideshow anyway, since only 1% of the world's food is certified organic, and only 10% is GM. So 90% of the world's food is *neither* organic nor GM. Let's focus on solving the bigger problems, like how we can get more healthy food with less environmental and social harm across *all* of our agricultural systems. And let's shift our approach of labelling with arbitrary names (e.g. "organic" or "local") to labels that indicate performance (e.g. what nutrition is being delivered, and how many resources/what environmental impact it took to produce it?)" This applies to almost every serious area of public debate that has some hard science or proper data analysis underlying it. Suggesting that there is a simple answer based on a catchy slogan almost inevitably means that you are wilfully ignoring the truth.

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

Interesting question raised here. Having considered it carefully, I am entirely in favour of schoolkids singing on the bus, unless it is one of those days when I am on the bus, in which case I recommend silent and respectful thought as more appropriate.

"Would we though? Consider the above mentioned report on waste, in the developing world most waste is before the point of sale and is down to poor roads/refrigeration etc, in the developed world it's post sale. Both can cut by changes in the market, a natural consequence of economic development in countries like India or price changes here." "get by with less" was a slightly lazy way of saying "less production", the point being that less production either means less consumption, or less waste. Either way, however, it requires a mass change in behaviour/systems, hence my comment that you can't really consider yield issues to be "less important" than waste. I guess my overall point is that it's easy to say that more farming should be organic, less easy to deal with the consequences, where simply saying "there should be less waste" doesn't take us any closer to achieving less waste.

"I'm not sure I agree that "resource consumption per unit of output" is forgotten outside of academic circles. I suspect that those who discuss food security in the wider society think it is less important than other considerations such as food waste." The issue is not really what is important, but what is achievable. As matter stand, if more farmland was given over to organic farming, the yield from that land would fall, and we would either need to get by with less, or find more land. Practical suggestions (as opposed to exhortations) as to how we get by with less are welcome, because I'm sure most campaigners for organic food don't want to see the woods chopped down and turned into fields.

"Agree Dave but isn't it good to have a standard anyway?" I question the usefulness of a standard that bundles up sensible criteria with stupid ones, because sensible people will not want to adhere to it.

Localteacher, I'm glad to see that your spelling and punctuation has improved, though there's still some progress to be made. Unfortunately nothing else has improved - must try harder!

"The fact that organic livestock are raised with more space, more natural food, superior outdoor access, more space per animal etc. seems less commonly known!" ....but obviously those conditions for raising livestock are not unique to farms that have gone to the trouble of being certified organic. My problem with organic food is that the process of certification implicitly draws a bright line between "good" and "bad" when the reality is less clear (for me at least). For example, the Soil Association promotes the use of homeopathic remedies for livestock, which kind of undermines their credibility.

Bob is spot on; foie gras is an easy target for ethical outrage because you can stereotype consumers as heartless toffs. But if you are going to be consistent you should be equally outraged by Cheapo Fried Chicken. But that looks like you're having a go at poor people, so not quite as much fun. I happily eat foie gras, and tbh it barely registers on my moral/ethical compass.

Reading the se1 link it appears that if you want to eat or drink at any of the venues on 31-33 floor you will have to pay ?30 odd per head which is then offset against your bill. Seems like a pretty strong disincentive to going there.

"Pretty much any pub with a flat roof should be avoided".... or with the word 'railway' in the name. Rule for life. Just as an aside, I once worked in a pub (with a flat roof) in Cambridge. One night after closing a brick came through the window with a note wrapped round it (for real). The note said 'don't turn up at court or you're a dead man'. I then found out that the landlord was a witness in an upcoming case where one of the regulars had been whacked over the head with an axe while he was sat at the bar. he'd turned his head at the last second and the axe had sliced his ear off. The pub looked a bit scarier after that.

Week 14 (22nd-23rd Dec) - Coupon Buster is Reading to win at Man City... Wigan 1 Arsenal 2 Man City 3 Reading 0 Newcastle 2 QPR 0 Southampton 2 Sunderland 1 Tottenham 2 Stoke 0 West Brom 2 Norwich 1 West Ham 1 Everton 1 Liverpool 2 Fulham 0 Swansea 2 Man Utd 2 Chelsea 2 Aston Villa 0 Week 15 (26th Dec) - Coupon Buster is Newcastle to win at Man Utd... Everton 2 Wigan 0 Fulham 2 Southampton 0 Man Utd 2 Newcastle 0 Norwich 1 Chelsea 2 QPR 1 West Brom 1 Reading 1 Swansea 1 Sunderland 1 Man City 2 Aston Villa 1 Tottenham 2 Stoke 1 Liverpool 1 Week 16 (29th -30th Dec) - Coupon Buster is West Brom to win at Man Utd... Sunderland 1 Tottenham 1 Aston Villa 1 Wigan 0 Fulham 2 Swansea 2 Man Utd 3 West Brom 0 Norwich 1 Man City 2 Reading 2 West Ham 0 Stoke 2 Southampton 0 Arsenal 3 Newcastle 1 Everton 2 Chelsea 2 QPR 1 Liverpool 1 Week 17 (1st-2nd Jan) - Coupon Buster is Reading to win at Tottenham... West Brom 2 Fulham 0 Man City 2 Stoke 0 Swansea 3 Aston Villa 1 Tottenham 3 Reading 0 West Ham 0 Norwich 0 Wigan 0 Man Utd 3 Southampton 1 Arsenal 3 Chelsea 2 QPR 0 Liverpool 2 Sunderland 1 Newcastle 1 Everton 1

http://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/the-glenlivet-nadurra-16-year-old-whisky/

"DaveR, the primary engine for overblown Greek debt wasn't the Euro, but that it quite simply lied on it's self-certified credit assessment. In 2009 the new government announced debt was 12.9% of GDP, not the 3.6% the previous government bad claimed. In other words it had persistently deceived banks about its ability to manage debt (and the size of that debt). It was this deception that created the crisis - date quite clearly to October 2009 - not the low interest rates achievable with the Euro. It was immaterial what currency that deception was played out in. People are trying to rewrite history to claim the single currency was at fault. It wasn't. In the aftermath the single currency certainly made it impossible to devalue - a strategy that would have been used historically to manage the situation (but then devaluation is financial nuclear war anyway, so the Greeks would have been no better off). It also made it more difficult to balance the economy internally by manipulating exchange rates to drive internal productivity." I'm afraid you're just wrong. It was the 2009 budget deficit that was revised upwards from 3% to 12% (and ultimately 15%). Debt was already running at over 100% of GDP. Greece had borrowed steadily throughout the 80s and 90s but had also experienced a series of devaluations, including in 98, just prior to joining the euro. It was well known in 98 that Greece had not met the criteria for euro membership (either debt or deficit) and it was subsequently well known that the SGP requirements were not enforced. Of course the Greek governments lied about debt and deficit levels, but the reason nobody cared and kept lending was essentially because they were buying euro denominated bonds, rather than drachma.

"There are four possible grounds for prosecution" misconduct in public office? The problem is that the officer was pretending to be a civilian, but i reckon you could make it stick. Perverting is also not quite as restricted as you say - the belief that there was or may have been a criminal investigation ongoing, or that one may start as a result of the complaint, would be enough. The detail I find interesting is that, as I understand it, the (now known to be fake) witness account supported the (still asserted to be accurate) police log as to the presence of other witnesses at the scene, when the CCTV appears to show that there was no-one else there. This strongly suggests that the original officers were complicit in the subsequent fakery, which in turn casts serious doubts on their reliability.

Isn't the point here that the proposals are the opposite of libertarian (as well as being stupid and offensive)? A nanny state is still a nanny state even where nanny turns out to be over strict and kind of joyless.

BTW, what does the second sentence here mean? "The Euro did not create the Greek crisis any more than the Bank of England is responsible for Comet going bankrupt. Both may have 'facilitated' debt by delivering the medium of currency...." Sorry to go back to Econ 101, but it seems to be necessary. Debt arises through the making of loans, and the interest rate is the price. If the market works properly, borrowers who are risky will have to pay more, and consequently will be able to borrow less. If it doesn't, it causes problems. Any monetary union risks distorting the market for sovereign debt amongst its members, and the euro is no exception. All of this is entirely uncontroversial (except, it appears, with you). No one (except you) is talking about 'victims', or other nonsense.

H, when I say you don't know anything, this is not a personal attack, just a reasoned deduction based on the evidence. I'm sure you're a good person.

"Would it be too Machiavellian to surmise that there was a deliberate EU policy to keep rates down so that people would get into such hock that they became totally dependent (enslaved) by the EU apparatus?" Yes.