DaveR

Quids, don't bother. I long ago realised that H's confident prose masks the most limited possible understanding of the issues (in every field, as far as I can see). For example: "No Quids, Greek pensioners would have been stricken regardless of the Euro - their problems occur because the government spent more money than they collected in taxes, and they borrowed money to fill the gap." The point is that Greek membership of the euro enabled them to borrow more money at lower interest rates than should ever have been the case. The debt markets didn't apply normal pricing because they perceived (rightly) that the Greeks had implied backing from Germany and the rest of the stronger euro economies. The euro countries had identified this risk early on, hence the stability rules, but these were not enforced. The extent of Greek indebtedness is a direct result of euro membership. "If they had their own currency, they would have defaulted and devalued and would be unable to borrow any money at all - if anything their European ties have given them a soft landing." If they had had their own currency throughout they might not be in this mess (or at least not to the same extent) - see above. If they had their own currency now they could unilaterally convert their euro debts into domestic currency, and adopt a domestic ecomonic policy that favours growth as a result of new competitiveness. It would be hard, but the current EC imposed austerity ain't exactly easy. "With or without the Euro Greek pensioners would have been stuffed, with the Euro at least someone else is helping them out." There is no prospect of life getting much better in the short term, in or out. In the mean time, the euro nations (for which read France and Germany, essentially) are stuck. A proper bailout for Greece (for example by converting Greek national debt into ECB backed Eurobonds) is politically impossible for domestic reasons. A structured default is politically impossible for eurozone reasons. Everybody knows this, and the debt markets simply reflect current thinking as to how strong the resolve is to find some kind of solution. The underlying position has not changed. The proposition that I understand Quids to have put forward (that I agree with, and I am far from alone) is that the acceptance of Greece into the euro, in the knowledge that the stability rules would not and could not be properly applied to them, lit the fuse on an economic timebomb that has now gone off. Whether this calls into question the wisdom of the euro project in its entirety is another matter, but it's kind of beside the point. A hypothetical single currency that avoided these problems may have worked, but it never existed.

I took a completely unplanned long haul flight with my 12 day old daughter, and honestly, it was a breeze. Don't worry about the flight - I would think more about making sure that once you get there you have time/space to relax a bit.

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

"I get a bit tired with these 'thin end of the wedge' arguments. The telephone is not the thin end of the wedge to brain control, the fridge is not the thin end of the wedge to Frankenstein foods. Likewise a statutory body for press complaints to stop papers literally making stuff up to target a family who lost their child is NOT the thin end of the wedge for a Stalinist state. I am persistently surprised when I hear grown adults making these claims. It's schoolboy conspiracy theories claiming that 'police' is the thin end of the wedge for Nazis. Stop it." H, I don't tell you to stop pontificating about things you barely understand (I tried, it didn't work) so why don't you just read and learn? At the moment there are legal controls over what newspapers are allowed to do in pursuit of stories (like criminal laws against phone hacking and harassment laws) and an assortment of legal controls on what they can print (libel, confidentiality, incitement etc.). However, these are part of the general law of the land that applies to everybody, and in many cases there is an explicit or implicit public interest defence. If as a journalist you break the law, you have to justify it. What is now proposed is a system of regulation specific to the press, whose job will be to determine what newspapers should be allowed to print. This represents a massive change - not so much the thin end of the wedge as a great big elephant in a previously empty room. The question that should concern everyone, frankly, is who chooses the people who choose what you get to read in the press?

Maybe I have a little more faith in human nature, and enlightened self interest. The right of free association is protected by the ECHR, is the root of all non-governmental collective action (including, for example, the trade union movement), and perhaps less dramatically, is the basis upon which people all over the UK get together to organise what they want for themselves, be it am dram, amateur football, WI or bog snorkelling. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily imply individualism, in large part because experience tells us that when people are free to choose they often seek collective solutions to their problems. But it's a matter of choice, not imposed. That's the point.

I don't think you can have regulation of what the press are allowed to report (as opposed to how they go about getting their information) without a significant risk to press freedom overall. I hate the fact that, for example, the relatives of murder victims get doorstepped by hacks, but the answer is more rigorous enforcement of existing harassment laws than direct press regulation.

"If a tax structure appears to the authorities in most countries to exist solely for the purpose of avoiding taxes the authorities want to collect, it won't be valid." - not in the UK, hence the proposal to introduce a GAAR. "HMRC do not sanction what they view to be illegal arrangements ever for the sake of operating in the real world" - no, but they do make careful judgments as to when to fight, when to settle, and when to walk away, based not on their view but on the view they expect a tribunal to take. "Not all countries have tax treaties with tax havens and many countries have them with only certain preferred ones!" Enough countries do for it to be a significant global issue: http://economia.icaew.com/business/december-2012/buried-treasure-tax-havens I agree with you regarding the hypocrisy of politicians, however, and you are also right to say that at the moment little effort is going into distinguishing between companies who are engaged in aggressive avoidance and those who don't pay a lot of tax for other reasons.

"What you are describing DaveR is more akin to tax evasion and is usually covered in most countries by general anti-evasion rules." No, you are mixing up evasion and avoidance. In the UK a tax planning scheme would only be considered evasion if it didn't genuinely attempt to comply i.e. the transactions or arrangements were a sham, as opposed to being artificial but still involving genuine parties and having real legal effect. Anti-avoidance rules on the other hand, in the UK at least, are based primarily around a duty to disclose, but they do not prevent even very aggressive avoidance schemes from succeeding in their object, provided they are structured carefully enough. This may change if the proposed GAAR comes into effect in 2013 (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm) It's not posturing or hypocritical to say that paying tax in your country of residence (if you are an individual) or country of operation (if you are a corporate) is part of the basic social contract and to seek to avoid doing so by taking advantage of artificial arrangments that have no other purpose is unethical. HMRC however work in the real world and do what they have to do to get as much cash in as possible. Don't confuse what they do and say with government policy, however.

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

"The point is all governments intentionally allow the effective tax rate to be dramatically lowered via various mechanisms because of the benefits (growth and lower prices). That doesn't mean that under all circumstances we would be better off with low rates of corp income tax -- it depends on how the taxes would be spent and if there are other ways to pay for what's needed. It does mean its a bit rediculous to buy into the current circus and demonise the companies who have been behaving exactly as the government would like them to." I think this view is fundamentally mistaken. The UK government sets tax rates and then offers exceptions or reductions based on incentivising particular behaviour that is perceived to provide a public benefit, whether it be pension saving, film investment, starting up new businesses, or whatever other ideas seem attractive to the Chancellor of the day. When taxpayers seek to take advantage of the exception without providing the corresponding benefit they are, of course, not doing what the government would like them to do at all. Film finance schemes that don't lead to any films being produced, or any staff being employed, or any support companies engaged, are clearly abusive and unethical, whether they manage to be legally effective or not. In any event, this analysis doesn't consider at all the use of artificial arrangments with low tax jurisdictions, which is a far bigger issue as far as corporate avoidance is concerned. The UK has double taxation treaties with other countries because at root it accepts that it is fair for income/assets/transactions not to be taxed twice, and, more importantly, because there is implicit pressure on all major economies to be 'tax friendly' jurisdictions for multinational corporates. Whilst I agree that keeping tax rates as low as they can be is generally a good thing, the sooner there is some collective action to effectively eliminate tax havens the better - they provide no benefit to anybody and present huge incentives to companies to act unethivally.

"Libertarianism conversely rejects the idea of authority/government in favour of free association and subordination to market forces. Since the natural consequence of free association is cartel activity and mob rule you'd have to be pretty daft to imagine the libertarianism was an effective social strategy." WTF? Since when did libertarianism = anarchism? And a cartel is the antithesis of a free market. Even by H's standards this is a nonsensical post. FWIW, i don't see that libertarianism equates with utilitarianism either, or that it can be assumed that taking a libertarian approach implies cold emotionless calculation. It just means that you prize freedom, and believe that, all other things being equal, the situation that allows as many people as possible to live their lives as freely from unwelcome interference as possible is most likely to produce the best outcome.

The bit I find interesting is that it recognises that individuals across the political spectrum are likely to be morally engaged in their position (even if, from a libertarian perspective, that is motivated by the concept of freedom itslef as a quasi-moral value). Probably the most tiresome single aspect of modern political debate is the left/liberal default standpoint that they represent the caring, unselfish perspective, whereas conservatives are somehow by definition greedy and self-interested. I'd be happy with this description too: These are people who often call themselves economically conservative but socially liberal. They like free societies as well as free markets, and they want the government to get out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom. They don't see why, in order to get a small-government president, they have to vote for somebody who is keen on military spending and religion; or to get a tolerant and compassionate society they have to vote for a large and intrusive state. and although I agree that the US is more polarised, I think there is still a split in the UK between those whose first reaction to a problem is "something must be done" (usually by the state) and those who ask "how will this change, and is state action really needed/the best thing?"

Do you want assam laksa or laksa lemak? Spicy sour fishy soup or coconutty curry soup? For assam laksa, the only place I've ever been in London that does a recognisable version is Bunga Raya, a Malaysian place in Thornton Heath. http://www.bunga.co.uk/page2.php For laksa lemak the best I've had recently was in a noodle bar called Chi, near Blackfriars http://www.chinoodle.com/content/mainmenu I've never seen it on the menu at Champor-Champor, but I'd be happy to be wrong. Alternatively, you can buy pretty good laksa paste at the Chinese supermarket in Peckham.

"If local sites are available they should go to the Local Authority to develop a school that would meet everyone's needs" If Southwark want any particular site they can pursue it, and are likely to have significant advantage over any other bidder in obtaining it. This is not about the site, but about the school, which will only receive public funds if it can attract enough kids.

This may be pretty obvious, but try and get on the right side of the cabin crew early on - I'm sure you would be anyway, but extra polite and grateful always helps. The chances are that at some stage you are going to be asking them to do stuff for you outside of the normal bring the tray/clear the tray, and a few extra smiles and thankyous may make the difference between them making an extra effort to help you, or making themselves scarce.

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

It was a thoughtful article, although he accepts that he has essentially no new insight to add to that of Orwell, 75 years ago: "Yet one couldn't help feeling, like Orwell, that it was a shame, and that more than poverty was to blame ? which must also be true now, because it can hardly be price alone that drives low-income families towards high-fat, processed food when the price of processed foods has risen by 36% over the past five years, more than any other food category. A fact may have to be faced: some people like it, and, given the huge power of the food business, coaxing them in a healthier direction may be no easier now than it was for society ladies in the 1930s." The expression 'food poverty' begins to sound a bit misleading when it is accepted that it has little to do with poverty per se, but appears rather to be the result of a complex correlation between income, education, class etc. Put bluntly, just as it is misleading to say that there are many people in the UK who cannot afford to eat enough, it is equally misleading to say that there are many who cannot afford to eat healthily. Rather, there appear to be many people who do not eat healthily, and current economic circumstances appears to be causing that number to increase. I would be interested to see if there is any research into what happens when people's financial circumstances change - do they gravitate from pies to salad, or plummet from halibut to hamburgers, as income changes? I should add that this is not an argument against immediate support for families or individuals in crisis who genuinely cannot buy food and pay the bills at a given time, but this doesn't seem to me to be the wider issue that these articles are concerned with.

The basic rule is as Mick Mac says above - your father's rights crystallised at the point of the cousin's death, and this is not affected by the subsequent death of your father (for which, my condolences). I am assuming that the cousin died intestate and that someone has been appointed to administer the estate? It is the responsibility of the executor/s of your father's estate to identify the assets, and if that includes an interest in the cousin's estate, the executor needs to get in touch with the administrator. If you do need legal advice it is likely that this will have to be arranged separately from any advice given to the administrator of the other estate, but a decent solicitor will advise you on that as well.

"Studying something is not the same as seeing the real impact for yourself" Agreed. One draws on a very large data set, the other a very small one, and one viewed through an entirely subjective lens. Not perhaps the best argument for saying 'listen to me'.

Another Guardian piece where the main narrative is entirely detached from the headline idea. His real conclusion is that the poor eat unhealthy food because they like it, but it's too patronising to say so. So he doesn't and instead says (somewhat strangely) that it's 'wicked'. As for the stuff about his local shops - it kind of loses any credibility when he talks about halibut. Has he never heard of mackerel?

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

I looked at the application docs. I couldn't see anything to get excited about. The proposed change of use is ground floor only, retaining the existing building and parking spaces (the latter for use by office occupants only), putting in bike storage, no other significant change. Traffic and parking is already busy in the immediate area, but that suggests to me that this will not have a signficant impact - who is going to drive to a shop knowing that there will be nowhere to park? As for "a new shop away from our high streets", the site is pretty much equidistant from the existing E Dulwich Rd shops and the top of LL, and on the main road. I can't see the objection.

"to suggest that drivers take less care around cyclists with helmets is utter folly. I would ask how you go about measuring this if I didn't think it was such rubbish. Idiosyncratic at best." Risk compensation is a very well-established and widely studied phenomenon, and although there is not much evidence specifically regarding cycle helmets, it's reasonable to think that both cyclists and drivers might change their behaviour if they perceive that wearing a helmet makes the situation inherently safer. If you think about it, do you drive differently where there is a clearly marked cycle lane compared to where there isn't? Is it possible that at a subconscious level you are more careful to give space to individual cyclists where there is no cycle lane? That having been said, the evidence that helmets offer benefit if you have an accident is good enough for me - I always wear one on the road. The evidence that cycle helmets make cycling overall safer is much less certain (for whatever reason) which is why I'm not an advocate for compulsory helmet wearing.

FFS, am I doomed to just repeat myself ad infinitum ? So who the f@ck is out there killing and injuring 100s of cyclists? Do you think it's more likely to be someone who recognises that cyclists are inherently vulnerable and that that is ultimately far and away the most important factor as regards safety, or is it someone who appears utterly convinced that if only cyclists themselves stopped being silly, everything will be fine? In short, is it me, or is it you? People are dying needlessly; that's not a fantasy, it's a tragedy. But it appears there will always be someone who's first reaction will be to say 'but they always jump red lights you know'. Anyway, I said at the very beginning that this alleged debate always goes round in circles and tbh I've had enough for now.

Loz, like I said before, I really don't care what people think about cyclists (and for this purpose, 'cyclists' includes me and 'people' includes you). Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it consists of saying 'but you broke the law!' as if that's a complete answer to anything. I only care about what people do about cyclists, and only then because I want to get to work in one piece. And just to remind everyone, I'll say it again. Cyclists having a bad name is not a good reason to run them over.