DaveR

I'll have one last go. It is an offence to display a red light at the front of your vehicle (don't ask me why). The relevant legislation provides for a fine, and allows a fixed penalty to be imposed. However, police policy is to give a verbal warning, because although this is a road safety issue, they recognise that this is a low risk infraction. What the driver thinks is irrelevant - the enforcer decides. In this case, most would agree it is the right decision. In other circumstances, the risk and hence the seriousness of the infraction depends on the circumstances. Speeding is a good example. In those now rare cases where you are stopped by the police rather than being caught on camera, you might get anything from a verbal warning to an arrest. The penalty legislation also allows a discretion as to whether points are endorsed or not, and even as we speak (type?) fixed penalty procedures are being reconsidered to give effect to this. Discretionary enforcement is nothing to do with moral relativity, dinner parties, saving the world, or Afghanistan. A failure by an enforcement authority (or indeed any public authority) to exercise discretion properly may makes its actions unlawful. The most obvious example of a failure is the absence of a policy which takes into account relevant factors. If you treat someone cycling the length of Lordship Lane on a Saturday afternoon the same as someone who nips onto the pavement to avoid getting stuck alongside a bus at a junction, either you don't have such a policy or it is not being applied properly. In both human and economic terms risk management now underpins almost every important decision. To use your example, how much of the ?8 billion cost and how many of the 3,000 lives will be saved by fining cyclists who ride on the pavement in circumstances where there is no apparent objective risk? And at what cost?

No attacks on pedestrians from me - and if the fining of cyclists riding on pavements was based on evidence of endangerment (or even likely endangerment in the particular circumstances) we wouldn't be having this debate. If you go through a red light and get fined you can't complain, because a red light is unambiguous and needs to be unambiguous for an effective road safety policy. Cycling on the pavement is different and was recognised as such when the relevant legislation was introduced - see Home Office/ACPO quotes on page 2 or 3 of this thread. PS - disadvantaging someone else for personal gain is always a matter of perspective - it's the difference between trade and theft.

Huguenot, you're quoting "zero tolerance" in relation to the marketing of outsourcing services to prove a point in relation to law enforcement and/or social responsibility? The zero-tolerance policy famously adopted by the NYPD did not mean zero discretion; rather it involved consistent enforcement against low-level offending where previously there had been none. It's nothing to do with moral relativity, and everything to do with adopting the most effective approach to changing behaviour. I'm no expert but a reasonable starting point in terms of current theory might be the Hampton Review of Regulatory Enforcement, which, whilst primarily aimed at the regulation of businesses nevertheless has been widely adopted by all manner of regulatory agencies. In particular it advocates a risk-based approach to enforcement (which seems to have been adopted in the City where cyclists jumping red lights (inherently more dangerous) got fines but those riding on the pavement generally got warnings). "Anything that deliberately puts another person at a disadavantage for personal gain falls into my naughty naughty book. There are degrees of malfeasance of course, but screwing with the global ecology because you can't be bothered to walk to the newsagent is pretty stinky. " That's my point - your book, your rules, your prejudices. Is that needless trip to the shops still a sin if it's raining, or if I've got to take my kid who will whinge all the way there and back if we walk, or if I'm intending to buy a few things that will be a bit heavy? Where do you draw the line, H, and why should I or anyone else care? It's not unlawful so how is it relevant to the subject of this thread? Might it just be "dinner party twonkery"?

"Surely the issue here is not about priorities, but whether or not it is cruel?" Lots of things are cruel. Most people seem to be concerned about whether it may be 'justifiable' cruelty i.e. like boiling a lobster for food, and also whether it is 'disproportionate' cruelty i.e. more cruel than it needs to be. In that context, using (for example) cruelty to children as an absolute comparate (i.e. never justifiable and always disproportionate) is understandable. Bullfighting is one of those things (like foxhunting) that if it had never happpened before, and I was asked whether it should start now, I would say no. But if the question is "should it be stopped?", it's impossible to ignore the cultural context; in Spain it is regarded by a significant number of people as a key part of the national artistic identity.

Huguenot, You refer to "strategies that have been proven in numerous case studies to cut crime, even if you're not informed enough to be aware of it" I would be grateful for references - I never like to be ill-informed. Re the distinction between law and "responsibilities" - the former is at least objectively discernible, the latter merely the product of the particular views/prejudices of the individual seeking to apportion them. You, for example, think people have a responsibility not to "drive your car just because you can". Many might disagree with you.

Histon are no pushover - top of the conference, managed by Steve Fallon and John Beck, ex Cambridge United captain and manager respectively. Beck took Cambridge to within spitting distance of the old First Division, and I seem to remember a cup tie against Arsenal when a certain D Dublin put Cambridge one up before they eventually lost. Look out, Leeds!

"If you dont' ride on the pavement, don't jump red lights, don't let your dogs crap where children play, don't drop litter, don't drive your car just because you can, and don't attack the people trying to uphold the laws we create.... you'll be happier!" What's the point of comparing these activities? Cyclists ride on pavements and/or jump red lights which is (i) illegal and (ii) happens in lots of different circumstances with lots of different potential and actual consequences. Dogs crap, and dog owners exercise varying degrees of care and control - whether it is an offence will depend on a myriad of circumstances. Dropping litter is a simple, deliberate wrong. Driving a car is neither illegal nor inherently wrong, but driving in a certain way or in certain circumstances may be either or both. When people say - "it's the law" - it conveniently ignores the fact that no state has ever sought to enforce all it's laws, and certainly not in an absolute way, and the public know and expect that discretion will be exercised. It's no answer to the charge that, for instance, PCSOs stopping and fining cyclists indiscriminately at a particular place and time is disproportionate and likely to be ineffective in securing the desired outcome i.e. pedestrian safety. "Trying to uphold the laws we create" is something that can be done well or badly, and when it is done badly people are right to be critical.

Prima donna cabinet minister also reported in the Times, where the condition is described as "Mariah Careyensis"

"Not to mention the Broken Windows theory which would seem to suggest that if you tackle low level aesthetic based crimes like litter/vandalism etc it encourages a low-crime atmosphere that extends to more serious issues such as burglary. It really is very simple. You know dropping litter/cycling on the pavement is illegal. Don't do it. And if you continue to, don't be surprised when someone actually enforces the law." I think this theory has been over-simplified. If low-level laws are not enforced at all, it doesn't take a smart theory to predict that a culture of lawlessness is likely to prevail. This does not address the issue of how laws are enforced. If methods of enforcement are inappropriate or disproportionate you lose public support and you are unlikely to achieve what you really want i.e. changing behaviour. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it has to be enforced by a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty; the vast majority of enforcement authorities have policies which set out what they are likely to do if they catch you breaking the law, ranging from a quiet word all the way through to prosecution. Cycling on the pavement is exactly the sort of 'offence' that needs a properly considered approach to enforcement, otherwise people will be (rightly) p!ssed off.

Charlie Brooker last night described the cast of "Brittania High" as "piss weasels", which was a new one for me.

Incidentally, in light of this, on a previous post: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." "CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice. I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)" I would question whether an enforcment policy, or practice, which did not broadly accord with this guidance, would actually be lawful.

It's easy for any debate on such an emotive issue to get polarised, and the important detail gets obscured. It has been widely reported that at at least one multi-agency meeting the police pushed very strongly for the child to be taken from the parental home (there were at least twop investigations into possible assaults, it seems) but were over-ruled. That decision, it seems to me, ought to be examined very closely, and I'm sure there are others that warrant similar scrutiny. The fact that social workers generally have good intentions and very difficult jobs to do deserves to be recognised but is not ultimately an excuse for failure, whether it be individual or systemic. PS - david_carnell, I'm afraid you lose on the tax fraud vs child death sentencing challenge. The most recent case is Hening, reported at [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 54. 15 years imprisonment upheld for VAT fraud. The longest sentence for direct tax fraud to my knowledge is 10 years.

"I can't see why anyone should cycle on pavements - if the environment is too harsh for kids cycling on the roads then tackle the problem rather than jumping on a pavement" Y'see Sean, the problem is this. I have a five year old daughter who likes riding her bike in the park. In order to get to the park, we cycle. I will introduce her to cycling on the road when she's ready, but I think now might be a bit too soon. I guess I could stick the bikes in the car and drive to the park, but I'm guessing you wouldn't favour that either. Or she could cycle round the garden, but the view gets a bit monotonous. So we cycle, together, on the pavement. And I try and make sure that we don't endanger, or hopefully even inconvenience anybody else. And that's the point really. If people are conscious of their environment and essentially considerate of others, problems are minimised. If you are a cyclict on the pavement you should have the mindset that this is not primarily your space - you should make room for pedestrians, not the other way round. If you are a cyclist on the road, you unfortunately often have to remind drivers that the road is not just their space, but you should also follow the rules. I've already admitted on another thread that I sometimes go through a red light on my bike, but only if I'm not endangering myself or anybody else. That doesn't make it OK, it just puts me in the camp of people who sometimes break the rules whilst generally respecting the principles behind them - so be it. Drivers, cyclists or pedestrians are all capable of being stupid/reckless/inconsiderate etc. But as part of being considerate you should also be aware of the potential for harm from what you are doing, and penalties (and enforcement strategies) for breaking the rules should be similarly proportionate. Fining cyclists for riding on the pavement without any aggravating features, and as part of a random 'swoop' at a particular junction, seems disproportionate to me, but that's not to say it shouldn't ever happen.

Believe it or not the Terminus Nord, directly opposite the Gare du Nord, is excellent. It is a genuine old style Paris brasserie, with the added bonus (for me at least) that it is owned by a guy/guys from Alsace so they also do fantastic choucroute. Off the train, straight in there for a good lunch, then a couple of hours to walk it off - perfect!

The Daily Mash continues to be the funniest thing on the web: ryanair In particular: "The in-flight meal will involve a catering box of Wotsits emptied into the aisle followed by an angry free-for-all."

Pretty much everything in the 'Family Room'. I do have a family but evidently I'm not that interested. The name is also a bit off putting - I visualise a room full of broken toys and smelling of dirty nappies with a machine selling weak coffee in inadequate plastic cups.

Your best bet if you want a true value would be to look for an existing garage currently availalbe (i) either to buy freehold or (ii) to rent. For (i) make a deduction for the cost of building a garage or for (ii) apply a multiplier to the rent to give a reasonable yield. At least then you are looking at land which is permitted to be used for that purpose, and has the requisite access (which may not apply to your back garden)

On yer bike, Mike

Is ED a nice place to live if you don't have kids? Yes. Is ED a nice place to live if you don't like kids? Maybe not Are you going to piss people off by suggesting that women with kids (i) don't have careers (ii) don't have "their own money" (iii) spend all their time in coffee shops and/or baby yoga sessions? Definitely

Not the original soundtrack but a great scene: dumpling

They can be slow - if you go and log on to the site it should show the instructor who has been allocated, and their phone number, so you can call them.

I cycle to Blackfriars every day and my current route is Barry Road, Peckham Rye, Rye Lane, the canal path, Trafalgar Ave, Old Kent Road, Great Dover Street, Trinity Street, Great Suffolk Street, Southwark Street, Blackfriars Bridge. About 20-25 minutes, plenty of other cyclists most of the way, and the only slightly hairy bit is turning right into Trafalgar Ave off OKR on the way home when you have to move across 3 lanes.

All of them. A list - Z list. Anybody who would be happy to be described as a 'celebrity' i.e. no defining achievement. Ignore them - if we all did they would disappear and we could get on with more important things. (Not important as in weighty, serious, just important as in things that concern us, our friends and families as opposed to things concerning talentless attention-seeking inadequates).

"So though I was going to nominate Ingle I'll happily settle for Perkins" I think you're out of luck there, MP: "She has been a reluctantly open lesbian since 2002, when ex-girlfriend Rhona Cameron outed her during the latter's stint on ITV's I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!"

Sorry Tony, but both the company and the bus analogies are a bit off the mark. Council housing polices are designed to reflect need, pure and simple, and whether you are foreign or not does not figure. Obviously you are probably statistically more likely to be genuinely homeless if you are a refugee recently arrived in the UK than if you were born and bred here, but the fact is that all homeless familes get priority over single adults or families who do have homes but want a council home instead. As to the Polish plumbers, don't you remember "Auf Wiedersehn Pet"? On balance we're all better off for having free movement (and would be even better off if various other European countries didn't cheat on their end of the deal). In the long term costs of living in Poland will rise and the wage differential will disappear. It's started already - Polish builders aren't as cheap as they used to be!