DaveR

Banana Splits - the cartoon was the Arabian Nights, and they also had a cartoon version of the Three Musketeers. I remember the cartoons well, but nothing about the rest of the show. Except the theme tune of course; "la la la, la la la la, la lal la, la la lal al......"

"I object to treating residential property as a financial investment" Who do you expect to own rental properties, and why? Money has to find a home somewhere - if you put your savings in the bank they will lend it to others, and some of them (individuals, small companies, big companies) will decide there's a reasonable return to be made from investing in residiential property - if they didn't, where would rental properties come from? Would you prefer every landlord to be some Rigsby-esque figure that you could pity rather than envy? The idea that there is a UK wide shortage of homes caused by buy-to-let investors is one of the maddest things I've ever heard.

Brendan, there's a difference between too few homes being available (generally) and too few homes being available in East Dulwich, for example. If people are willing to pay a lot to rent in ED then buy-to-let investment is attractive and will drive prices up until the yield falls to a minimum realistic level. If people decide that they'd rather pay less rent and live in Penge, or that they'll buy their own place in Dartford, demand will fall, and so will rents. If you want to insist on the basic principles of economics being mistaken, go ahead.

"Demand has been going up because the properties that should be being sold to first time buyers are being bought by people as buy-to-let investments, thereby forcing younger people to rent. It?s not rocket science. This is exactly why many other countries regulate the buy-to-let market." With respect, this is not rocket science, it's bollocks. The ability of people to fund buy-to-let is determined by market rents, not the other way round. If more properties were bought for occupation rather than for letting the pool of rental properties would fall and rents would stay high for those still renting. Borrowers or lenders involved in unwise buy-to-let ventures will take the hit, but owning residential property in London will continue to be good business in the long term, probably forever.

*pedantry warning* Isn't "a" an indefinite article?

"Because it's greedy?" Really? You have a good job or a successful company, and decide that rather than blowing your cash on champagne and cocaine you want to buy a nice place in the country where you and the kids can go at the weekends, or alternatively that rather than stick your cash in the bank (so they can lend it to property developers) you'll dabble in the landlord business yourself? What do you suggest SMG, give it all away? Maybe we're all greedy. Since when has that been a basis for taxation, anyway. Because housing is a limited resource and yet is something we consider an essential human requirement? Like food, or clothes, which we are happy to leave to the market to provide efficiently. Unless you're talking about specific types of housing in particular geographical areas, in which case slightly more specific and targeted measures may be more effective. Because it distorts the market and leaves millions with no opportunity to own a home and yet ensures rents rise? How is the market distorted when a person buys a house at the price a vendor is willing to sell for, regardless of whether they intend to live in it or rent it out? The reason rents in London have been broadly rising is because, despite increasing supply, demand has been even higher. Why? Because people want to live here, because there are jobs here etc. Arguably rents would be even higher if the rise of the samll landlord had not driven more semi-speculative development. And anyway, the opportunity to own a home is a two way street - the value of your investment can fall as well as rise!

Re the connection between fascism and pasta Marinetti, the Futurist, blamed the sloth (as he perceived it) and lack of warlike vigour of the Italian populace on their consumption of pasta. Marinetti was one of the earliest supporters of Mussolini, who later sought to reduce the Italian dependence on pasta. This was mainly because he wanted to make the country self-sufficient and a lot of durum wheat flour was imported, but also (allegedly) because he shared Marinetti's views of it's negative effect on the Italian fighting man. So, make bucatini all'amitriciana - not war!

We all know the kind of people who come on to internet forums (or perhaps "fora"?) and talk b@llocks, so it does it really matter whether you call them "tw@ts" or "f&ckwits"? I challenge anyone to give a toss about any of this.

North African would be good - tagine, brochette, couscous etc. Or (in my dreams) Iranian, with a bread oven in the front, like the places round Olympia/West Ken - fantastic

Obviously this debate could go on and on Suffice to say that Herzl himself was neither particularly observant nor motivated by religion, that Zionism almost since day one has been primarily a secular political/nationalist movement (just as the Arab League et al have never been Islamic movements) and that Israel is and always has been essentially a secular state. The date of the declaration was either on the day or the day after the end of the British mandate - I can't be bothered to check - and was pretty clearly intended as an inspiration/call to arms rather than a practical political statement

H, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but have you read much recent Middle Eastern history? The Arab-Israeli conflict is hardly theological in origin. "A wish to obliterate Israel is no more outrageous than the conviction that you have the right to create your own homeland in someone else's backyard." Do you really believe this? One the one hand genocide, on the other, a dispute about land rights created at least in part, and some would say the major part, by British indecision/deception over Palestine in the '40s? I'm not taking sides - I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest.

Huguenot, I think you'll find the original posts had nothing to do with the settlers, who are hardly part of current Israeli govt policy, are they? Read the story - it came to light because of Israeli human rights group exposing the crimes of the settlers, and reporting them to the Israeli police. Meanwhile, suicide bombs go off in Tel Aviv buses. You are interested in ratios - try the population of states who have as their foreign policy, official or otherwise, the elimination of the state of Israel vs the population of Israel - then wonder why the Israelis adopt a pretty aggressive strategy. And as for who is the armchair liberal, don't make me laugh - when was the last time you saw any popular support in europe for Israel? I've lost count of the number of pro-Palestine demos I've seen with the usual suspects of wispy bearded students and Crouch End media w@nkers, together with the "we like free speech but we don't like Israel" academic boycotts, and even on this forum where a certain regular and clearly well-educated and thoughtful contributor (not me, I hasten to add) is chided for his unfashionable views. We judge Israel by our own standards but treat Arab countries differently - an Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian child and it is worldwide headline news, an Arab state destroys an entire village and all its inhabitants and it barely makes the radar.

"The sooner Israel realises that BECAUSE it's small it needs to talk and stop shooting as a means to end, the sooner they'll achieve genuine security as opposed to the illusory type that a 'surgical strike' will achieve. Israel needs to look att living with it's neighbours long term," Yeah, those neighbours are just waiting with open arms for Israel to say, hey, we're weak, lets talk... All those Arab leaders saying, hey, if Israel would just stop shooting we could all live safe within our borders... All those Arab leaders who respect democracy, freedom, human rights, except when they're using nerve gas on their own populace. Thankfully the Israelis have a sufficient grip on the realities of the situation to comfortably ignore the European left-liberal-lazy romantic point of view and get on with the business of survival.

If you do it right it imposes unselfishness on you, which can only be a good thing. It reminds you of innocent pleasures long-buried by cynicism and "sophistication". It puts ambition and materialism into context. It enables you to experience growing up as an observer and a mentor, and its an amazing thing. And when you get home from work and you hear running to the front door and then the kids jump on you and shout "Daddy" you forget about what a sh!t day you had, and momentarily, at least, everything is right in the world. Heart-warming enough? I for got to mention - the house is a mess, you have to drive a sensible car, you can't get pissed on Saturday afternoons, they either get up bloody early or not at all, and it lasts a lifetime.

"....you don't want a shit life" And so we come back to the beginning again - for the majority of people, it's about choice For the record, I agree with *Bob*'s now legendary "cock-based" analysis of society - I would just add that we can do without anything that tends to increase the "cock" percentage over time.

Come off it d_carnell, that's just the kind of cr@p that Cameron is talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that if you are not a "well educated, nutritionally aware, middle-class male with a stable, well paid job and a support network consisting of similar" then you don't know that eating pies makes you fat? As for the neighbour/hood point, if by paying benefits and providing housing centrally you effectively remove interdependence from communities then you also remove a powerful incentive for people to respect and look out for each other. You mentioned rental properties - go look at some and compare them with owner-occupied places. It's all about responsibility, decisions and consequences - exactly Cameron's point.

The benefit/housing system is intended to function as a safety net but instead provides huge disincentives to individuals to get out of it. It also arguably has done a lot more to undermine communities than any particular political idea/policy (see above) - after all, why give a t@ss about your neighbours when everything you have is provided by the 'social'?

This is what Cameron said: ?We talk about people being ?at risk of obesity? instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise,? he said. ?We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it?s as if these things ? obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction ? are purely external events like a plague or bad weather. ?Of course, circumstances ? where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school and the choices your parents make ? have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices people make.? Do you disagree?

New flat - 900 sq ft Average ED 3 bed house - 1000 sq ft? Not much downsizing. And not much interest in Lucy and whoever, to be honest.

Burglaries are largely opportunistic, so any point of easy access e.g. open window will attract attention. The issue with garden flats and blocks with communal entrances is that a burglar can gain entry to the premises whilst out of sight of the street, and in blocks of flats the street entrance is usually less secure than the street entrance to a house. The single biggest deterrent to burglary is to have a proper deadlock on every external door, and it obviously helps to have doors which are chunky enough not to be easily smashed in, and double glazed windows. If you are in a block with a communal entrance encourage your landlord and fellow occupants to take security seriously - proper door, and don't let strangers in.

How can a parent change the management of a school? The quickest way is to vote with your feet - go somewhere else. From what I have been told, that's what happened to Heber, where rolls had fallen to 50% capacity, but within a year or two of a new head being appointed it was oversubscribed, not because it was some sort of middle class paradise but because parents recognised it was heading in the right direction, and, as I have said before, the majority of parents do actually want to send their kids to the nearest school. There doesn't have to be a local duff school but if there is one the rational (not cynical) thing to do is to choose somewhere else.

"But surely the way to do the best for your kids is (i) to have them mix with children of all different backgrounds (ii) in a school where the majority of parents take an interest and (iii) where those values can be spread to kids who are not fortunate enough to have such enlightened and caring parents" (i) & (ii) - agreed (iii) - a useful and welcome consequence of (i) and (ii) But this, nevertheless, misses the point. To relate this back to the original topic, Goose Green School, according to OFSTED, is failing because it is badly run. Many parents nearby will send their kids to Dog Kennel or Lyndhurst - hardly bastions of the bourgeoisie, but well run schools which have impressive OFSTED reports as well as lots of satisfied parenst

It is extremely lazy to instinctively blame the US and Britain, particularly when, in this case, it is widely accepted that potential UN action has been frustrated by Chinese and Russian opposition, and Mugabe has consistently been backed (until very recently) by SADC neighbours.

All the local state primary schools are 'community schools' and many familes live close enough to more than one to enable them to make a choice. So do you advise they choose the school which, when they visit, appears to be well-run and provide a good education in happy, secure and appropriately disciplined surroundings (as well as having a good OFSTED report) or the one which looks fine but has severe deficiencies identified by OFSTED and a head teacher on his/her way out the door? Get real. There may be no inherently crap schools but there are schools that underperform, usually because of a lack of leadership. If you want to choose that school, for whatever reason, go ahead, but what anyone else does is, frankly, none of your business.

"why do they just have seats down one side? Seems a waste of space" I was also wondering - Denise, are you saying it's because of the Disability Discrimination Act? Seems a bit odd.