DaveR

"You can get purple poppies from blue brick cafe for all the animals killed during war. (just for you DaveR)" And you can get pork pies from William Rose. I know which I prefer.

My argument is simple - none of your business whether anyone else wears a poppy or not. Have you got a straight answer? H?

The level of manufactured self-righteous outrage on this thread is off the scale. Both the pro and anti CPZ camps are essentially selfishly motivated but at least the pro lot are speaking from actual experience. I don't have a strong opinion either way and I suspect, across all the residents of ED, I'm in the majority.

"because of that inflation he was accused of "dishonouring the dead" H?

Freeforming again H? You attributed the motive to the individual - 'doesn't like being told what to do' and castigated him for his various undesirable qualities You set up arguments for and against and then decide that you are not convinced. You assert that not wearing a poppy is 'rejecting an act of group remembrance' - which is b@llocks SJ specifically referred to Jon Snow complaining about accusations that he was dishonouring the dead, a point which you continue to ignore by pretending that it wasn't made. And you suggest that not wearing a poppy has somehow become taboo and therefore likely to encounter the disapproval of the mob, whilst disdaining any connection with that ill-informed minority. My argument is simple - none of your business whether anyone else wears a poppy or not. Have you got a straight answer?

The argument on one side is a simple one. Not wearing a poppy need not convey any particular message or opinion. It has never been 'taboo' not to wear one. In those circumstances it is no business of anybody but the individual. The counter-argument is based entirely on ascribing a particular motive/opinion or calling for an explanation or justification. Or now H appears to be saying its because we have no choice but to give in to mob rule (an argument I don't find particularly attractive).

H, on the other thread on this topic you equated not wearing a poppy with shouting abuse at strangers in the street. Have you changed your mind about that?

So poppies not compulsory, unless you happen to go to a school that decides that they should be. Because otherwise you would be a 'presumptuous teenage twot'. H, I have to admire your 'freeform' approach to debate and argument. It must be so liberating never to be bound by anything you've ever said before, or any consideration of internal logoc and/or rationality.

"Championing the environment over human greed" That's not what you're doing Tom. You're being endlessly disingenuous and frankly very dull, which is putting me off my sausages - a crime against humanity in my book. Why don't you go and start a thread about something unconnected with eating/not eating meat and prove that you're not just a single issue pillock?

I reckon Si Mangia were picking up on when you said this: "I like Si Mangia too - a good local eat - I know Lorenzo's and that they are sister restaurants, but I heard that their dough is frozen as is their seafood "

"However I feel consumers of meat often use the phrase 'high welfare' to excuse the fact that they are growing a life just to be killed and its flesh eaten" I never use the phrase 'high welfare'. I prefer the phrase: "I'll have the ribeye. Medium-rare".

"Whether you give/get flak or not (nice metaphor ) depends on whether you believe that the deaths of millions of people on behalf of a nation requires national recognition. It's not within itself jingoist. If the consensus of opinion is that it is, then you can expect to get grief for breaking the taboo in the same way as you would for walking down the high street yelling swear words in people's faces." What utter b@llocks. It's perfectly possible to believe in the sentiments behind Remembrance Sunday but choose not to wear a poppy. "Only 'recently' must mean at least 40 years, because I used to wear one at school, and I didn't go to school on a Sunday" And for completeness, this is b@llocks too. People have been wearing poppies for years but it is only recently that attention has been drawn to people not wearing them, with the implication that this is unacceptable. That was the point being made, which H either didn't understand or ignored.

Since when has Helen Graves been 'illustrious'? On the substance, surely by now this has been done to death. Some people are selfish idiots. They include smug, self-justifying parents who have no consideration for the way they and their children behave in public and the effect that this has on others. They also, however, include people who constantly complain about their precious little lives being interrupted by the unwelcome presence of kids, prams etc. in, God forbid, shops, cafes and pubs. Fortunately, the majority of people are not selfish idiots, and somehow manage to rub along with each other.

It's wrong to compel anybody to wear a poppy. There are occasional stories about newsreaders etc. being criticised for not wearing them on-air which is equally objectionable. Not wearing a poppy should not be understood to represent any particular opinion, and as such should not be anybody's business but the individual.

"Explosions across our City. Tonight is a night of celebration. We hear explosions and what could be gunfire all across London. Now be in Tripoli. Or Baghdad. Or Sirte. Or Fallujah. Cities razed to the ground. No power. No water. Protecting your family, your children. You have no choice in this, you had no choice in this. Politicians in countries you have no interest in decided you should be bombed. Military powers you have no knowledge of are now flying over your home. Phosphorus is dropped. Your child burns. You are nothing but collateral damage. We are very sorry. Targeted military installations. We very much regret the loss of civilian life." And your point is? It's easy to trot out this sort of tripe, not so easy to say exactly what you think ought to be done. No Western intervention in Libya and Gadaffi would still be in power - would that be better? What do you reckon the average Libyan thinks?

I looked at the website for sales in ED in 2011 1/3 of all the sales recorded were in Landells Road That seems odd - anybody have an explanation?

"I was recently in MPC on LL and there were two mothers in with prams and children. The two prams had been stowed in the narrow aisle by the seats in the window, meaning that five seats were completely unaccesible during the profitable lunch-time. The mothers obviously were sitting elsewhere and from what I could see while I was in looked like they were there for the duration. The staff were commendably patient but I thought it selfish beyond belief of the mothers. MPC has perhaps 30 covers inside maximum and two mums were taking up about one third of their capacity for two adults and two kids at their busiest time of the day. That is the sort of attitude that leads to the OP." "I have yet to notice an attitude in ED that children are less than indulged and allowed to do as they please whenever and wherever they please. That, I think, is the experience that those who are 'intolerant' of children have noted and objected to, and this unrestrained indulgence at the expense of others would, I suspect, be much more likely to create self-entitled rioters with no concept of boundaries." Damian, I sense you're getting outraged again. So which is worse, and more invasive of your human rights - parent and child parking spaces or mums in cafes? If you read carefully (go on , try!) you will find that the OP was complaining about children in pubs - places many people go in the hope that they are primarily catering for adults, what with the boozing, swearing etc. Not cafes, at lunchtime. I have some sympathy with the OP, but you are, as always, just making youself look ridiculous (in a purple-faced, ultra-indignant, yet somehow comical way).

"It?s tedious, it?s boring, it?s dishonest and, fundamentally, it?s stupid." It's Huguenot!

"My research (albeit late at night after some wine) suggests it IS a crime to act on racism through actions or words" What JT was alleged to have said might be caught by the racially aggravated version of s.5 Public Order Act offence: ?a person is guilty of an offence if he ? uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour ? within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.? but would be difficult to prove the second element.

I find the article extraordinary. 90% of it is fairly sensible and then the guy loses the plot. Racism in UK football has declined precisely because it is no longer tolerated by players, clubs and fans, so to argue that players should now tolerate it is plain stupid. I think this is a bit over the top, though: "Its a hate crime. Jon Terry needs to be properly tried in a law court, not a football associtaion diciplinary court, and assuming he is guilty, he needs to be banned for an appropriate period" Something that isn't a crime on the street doesn't become one on a football field. IMHO a better analogy is racism in the workplace. In most places, being found to have racially abused someone at work would get you fired. Footballers on the field are doing their jobs, and the same standards should apply (although sliding tackles are not allowed in my office, so there'd have to be some allowances made).

"This may seem ridiculous to some, but I feel this could be the start of the decline of our area" It certainly seems ridiculous to me. "The bins not being bio degradable I think is part of the problem" If the bins bio-degraded all the rubbish would end up on the floor, which would be even worse, no?

The protesters are not adding anything to the current debate. We all know there are problems, but most sensible people know that they are not simple enough for the answer to be written on a placard. I'm not angry with them but I am perfectly clear that what they are doing is pure self-indulgence. If they want to make a difference, they should go and do something useful. It's always easier to save the world than clear up your room.

"DaveR: Interesting analogy, but flawed. Maybe it would be more appropriate to use a shopping trolley analogy. Imagine pushing a full trolley around the streets for several hours a day. If you had the choice between using a shopping trolley that did the job, but hurt your back because it wasn't ergonomic and with a seat that wasn't comfortable for your baby to be in, but was only ?1 a day; or a trolley that was better designed, more comfortable for your back, and more comfortable for your baby so they slept longer but it cost ?2 a day; how many would go for the more expensive option whenever they could? A pushchair isn't like a car because there's comparatively very little physical effort involved in driving a car. the physical toll on a Mums body from using a cheaper pushchair is significant (I've got the bad back to prove it!. Your car analogy is too simplistic." Interesting analogy, but flawed. It assumes that you have to spend ?2 (or in the actual context of this thread, the cost of a Bugaboo Bee - i.e. about ?500) or you get something that is inherently less fit for purpose. Which in the case of buggies is clearly b@llocks, whether you personally made a bad choice in the past or not.

Buggies are like cars. A boring Japanese or Korean one will do the job. But lots of people prefer a Golf. If you want a Bugaboo, get one. It will do the job and look good. There are other buggies that will do the job for quite a bit less dough.

"The poor just ate cheaper cuts of meat, or ate less meat. And they were healthier for it too" I'd like to see some evidence for that - life expectancy has never been higher in the UK, and is substantially higher than in countries with significantly lower incomes. Some of that is due to advances in medical science, but not all. The truth is that until a couple of generations ago the genuinely poor often went hungry.