DaveR

So H calls anybody who disagrees with him a xenophobe then gets 'annoyed' when someone calls him a fanatic. Get used to it. You are, literally, the only person left in the world who thinks the euro project was a noble crusade which would be all fine and dandy, but for one or two minor difficulties and 'profiteering' by money markets. Or maybe you and Ed Miliband (you know, the guy who reckons businesses are either producers or predators) BTW, silverfox, you're not helping any. You don't have to meet simplistic nonsense with more of the same.

On the boring stuff, the positive case against her was pretty thin and was undermined further on appeal. The circumstantial background stuff was pretty damning - opportunity, some kind of motive, and in particular her many and varied stories about her movements on the night in question. Reminiscent in some ways of Barry George, and the same outcome - convicted at trial, overturned on appeal. Obviously I have no idea whether she did it or not but I'm not surprised at the outcome. Much more importantly, she is deffo fitter than Louise Woodward but not as fit as the spy girl. I'll give her 7 (fnar)

"You've allowed your hatred of foreigners to overwhelm your good sense" There you go again. I've lived in Italy, speak Italian, have lots of Italian friends, visit regularly, and (it appears) have a rather more developed understanding of the Italian economic situation than you do. If you don't believe me, look at what the ECB ("strongest bank in the world" says H) thinks: ECB letter to Italy "I think you'll find that the problem was created by excessive consumer credit, bad loans, devaluation in mortage securities, under capitalisation, a liquidity crunch, and a recession that pushed borderline economies into a situtation where profiteering money markets imposed cavalier interest rates that exceeded their ability to repay." This is similarly disingenuous. These issues have affected all European economies to a greater or lesser extent (and the UK greater than many) but they exposed rather than created sovereign debt problems. Any you criticise 'profiteering' when finally the markets are actually pricing risk accurately? What's happened to you, H? These days you're like some swivel-eyed ranting loony, dismissing all dissent with spit-flecked prose and personal attacks. Get a grip. There is a euro crisis. There is a quite wide range of valid and sensible opinion as to what might and should be done. Your opinion may well be valid and sensible but at the moment it's obscured by nonsense.

For clarity, I am not saying that supporting European banks that are exposed to sovereign debt is wrong. I am saying that it is not the issue. The Eurozone is not seeking to prevent Greek default because of the impact it would have on banks, but because of the impact it would have on the Greek economy and (more importantly) the knock-on effect it would have on other countries debt positions and the strain it would put on the Euro project as a whole. To compare the current situation with the UK government's decision to bail out Northern Rock et al is disingenuous, at best.

"Certain banks in Europe (of mostly minor importance - don't claim you ever heard of Dexia before) are exposed to sovereign debt from governments such as Greece that have a repayment problem" H, for someone who accuses others of lying quite so freely you can be fairly economical with the actualite yourself. The real concern is Italian debt, to which European banks are exposed to the tune of c.?350 billion (including all the major Italian, French and German banks). "The act of 'shoring up' these banks is not throwing away money: these are trading exercises. As the UK discovered, saving the banks only costs a few tens of millions in the final analysis, more than the trillions a melt down would create" I'll be generous and call this disingenuous. There is a clear difference between bailing out UK banks that were undercapitalised but had long term loan books that would pay off, and bailing out countries that cannot credibly pay their debts, ever. At the moment it looks like there will have to be (at least) a restructuring of the sovereign debt of a number of countries and this will put a strain on the continued existence of the euro - pointing this out is neither xenophobic nor 'lying' and as for this.... "One is a group of visionary, inclusive, capable politicians who recognise that the long term security of Europe relies upon the creation of a united region with sound political and economic strategies that can negotiate effectively in a world of shrinking energy reserves and mineral resources. The other is a group of short-sighted financial carpet baggers, ably supported by narrowminded xenophobes and competitive economic blocs who would try and bring the European economy to its knees. They will attempt to do this in piecemeal fashion, by rolling Greece, rolling Italy, then Spain or Ireland until there is nothing left." Nuance has never been your strong suit, has it? It gives me no pleasure to suggest that it is exactly your kind of near fanatic idealism and economic illiteracy that got the euro into this mess in the first place.

They should have been doing something more sensible and productive than standing around outside Co-op bothering people.

I'm confused now. I thought this was a cyclists vs motorists thread but now it's veered off into a posh wannabe incomers vs old school salt of the earth dulwich folk thread. Is that allowed? Much more interesting is the potential fight in the offing between LadyDeliah and the 10 stone weakling who is DulwichMoan. I'd pay to see that.

In an earlier post DulwichMoan said: "I Think Im A Good Driver, When On The Road I Treat Other Cyclist's As Another Car." I'm going to ignore the first part, and concentrate on the second. Do you expect another car to move over and let you pass, just because you don't think they're driving fast enough? Actually, you probably do. There should clearly be an IQ test to hold a driving licence.

"What I am in favour of is the right of a business to subsidise it's building costs by putting up an advert on it's scaffolding, providing it doesn't interfere with the quality of life of individuals or other businesses" This is kind of meaningless - the whole point of the planning process is to identify when a proposed change interferes with quality of life of people in the neighbourhood (at least as perceived by the local authority in its local plan) and then decide whether, on balance, it should go ahead. "Saying you don't think it will look nice isn't going to cut the mustard with the council" This isn't true either. Southwark's strategy for Lordship Lane is to 'protect the interesting character' and 'attractive shopfronts' - see the relevant doc here: Southwark core strategy In fact, the only basis on which to assess it is visual impact - there is no commercial or other benefit to the community, although there obviously is to the business. FWIW I can see that regular advertising hoardings might look better than scaffolding, but I'd rather have scaffolding than a massive illuminated billboard. Just my view, but it's no less valid than any other I reckon.

"innocent" animals? Innocence implies a moral or ethical context which makes it literally pointless to talk in terms of 'innocent' animals and (by implication) 'guilty' humans. Similarly, humans may be f*cking up the planet, but what relevance does that have in the context of this discussion? If you want out of human society, you can always head for the bush and take your place in the natural food chain. Testing cosmetics on animals isn't wrong because the animals have rights, or are innocent. It's because inflicting pain on animals for a trivial reason is wrong by our own moral/ethical code. The consensus seems to be that inflicting pain for the purpose of saving human lives is OK, but even then I'm sure for most people there are limits. Killing all the tigers in the world would save a few human lives, but I'm not aware of much support for that. The point is this, TM. We all know you're a vegan, and for all I know you never swat flies either. But you only have one message and it's a bit tiresome when you keep on trying to dress it up as something else.

RB, have you considered a session or two with a childminder for your toddler? It's the obvious alternative to nursery and probably less of a change compared to being at home.

"Agreed testing on animlas has had its suceeses (just the same as eating meat has had its successes of developing the human) but I think we should moved beyond this victorian method of science" Are you qualified to make this judgment, TM? Are you confusing morality with efficacy?

If they are there with the express consent of the proprietor of the shop, and he is either the freeholder or leaseholder of the land, I reckon they could have a stab at arguing that they are 'occupiers' within the meaning of s.21(2)(j) and therefore not 'street trading'.

Headphones obviously inhibit your awareness - the issue is whether they materially inhibit i.e. are you less safe as a result. In my view (and that of everybody else, probably in the world) they inevitably do. DJKQ, equally inevitably, disagrees. And thus the debate reaches the usual EDF conclusion.

Not so much tasteless as pointless

LadyD, I read some of the musings of your political philosopher. I was particularly taken with this proposition: "If we look to the year 1977, we find it to be especially important in the history of mankind. It is the year Charlie Chaplin died, a moment that that, to my mind, marked the end of a possibility for a kind of a humane and gentle modernity."

"It is a very English thing to move to an area and try to change it. Like the Brits abroard syndrone.. The people who went to live in Spain but hated the Spanish, refused to learn Spanish and turned a little bit of Spain into a little bit of England. Come and live in ED. But don't try and change it, and learn the language so to speak" East Dulwich has been around roughly since the 1870s and I guess it's changed quite a bit since then. It's natural to think of your area as having always been how it was when you were growing up, but it just aint so, particularly not in inner London during the last 30 years. Whether you like it or not, most of the people shopping in the arty farty shops and drinking in the overpriced bars are part of the local community, even if they haven't been around for as long as you.

"Does anyone here know what the (Prompt Corrective Action Act) is?" Yes.

This is my prediction: "There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock."

"I think if I had been facing the prospect of a mountain of debt before I'd even got going in life, I would have thought twice about going." I suspect a lot of people feel that way, but the stats suggest that for the vast majority of them it's still a good choice overall, financially. This article and the underlying research (pretty heavy going for non-economists, like me) is pretty persuasive.

The cheese stall is outstanding, and I'm also a big fan of the Blackbird bakery. The other stalls...not so much. In particular, ED has no shortage of quirky independent shops selling interesting and decorative stuff (I'm told - it's all the same rubbish to me) so less demnd for broadly the same stuff in the market.

Damian, could I ask you not to post on this topic quite so frequently, and at such length? The forum is a valuable resource designed to be used by the whole community and the space on the servers is not unlimited, you know. Also, in your next post, could you describe yourself, including any distinguishing marks, so that parents who may be reading will be able to avoid you if they see you out and about (purely out of a desire not to offend, you understand)? 'Sore hands' are probably not sufficiently visually distinctive.

Damian, can I make it clear that I long ago stopped reading your posts other than in the most cursory way, and I do not purport to answer your arguments. I am in it purely for the entertainment value, and I'm pleased to see that this particular gift just keeps on giving. Now, tell me again about your human rights?

"Both systems should represent a cross-section of intellectual capability so that students evolve in as pluralist a representation of human capability as possible" This is the sort of muddled thinking that got us into our present mess. It's perfectly possible to instil respect for all whilst allowing kids to be educated in the most effective way, which is obviously in groups that are matched to ability and aptitude. Do you want a cross-section of intellectual capabilities in medical schools? Or, for that matter, a cross-section of manual skills in carpentry schools? Grammar schools would be great, provided the alternatives on offer for kids who are not suited at that age to that sort of education are properly organised and funded to provide high quality vocational education. And also enough flexibility to cater for late developers. That's the real challenge.

I'm perfectly content to hurl abuse from the sidelines rather than contribute to the debate, because there is no debate. There are a few people whingeing about people with no children using parent and child spaces, and a few others whingeing back about parents and their sense of entitlement. And then there's Damian. Purple with indignation about the flagrant breach of his human rights. If he had a car, by golly he'd like to park it in a super-wide space, right by the front door. In fact he'd like to park it in the dairy aisle, next to the Laughing Cow cheese triangles. That would show them, all those selfish mums who glide serenely through the doors he holds open, without even a glance in his direction. Oh yes.