DaveR

"That's a bit easier to explain. The salt lowers the freezing point of water. So, instead of the ice/water mix being about 0c, it can drop to about -10 (or even further with the right mix of salt and water). And even though that makes it a similar temp as a freezer, water transmits heat more easily, so it should cool the drink faster" Very roughly, every 50g salt per litre of water = 2 degree drop in freezing point, down to -20.

My older daughter (12) went to PGL last year and this year and absolutely loved it. She went with a friend and there was essentially a BOGOF deal which made it very good value. PGL have been around for years - I remember my younger sister going 30 years ago. https://www.pgl.co.uk/

There are lots of discussions on here about particular streets, junctions, crossings etc. and one thing that is clear is that perception of risk and historical statistical risk are often very different - lots of near misses and not feeling safe generally does not necessarily correlate with actual accident numbers. Just using accident data, I suspect any enforcement exercise targeting cyclists would be less efficient than almost any comparable exercise targeting motorists. On the other hand, it's never going to be helpful if one section of road users are essentially immune from enforcement - there needs to be some deterrent. So, some targeted enforcement activity specifically in relation to cyclists is probably a good thing, to make people actually safer, and so that they feel safer. The problem with doing it at this junction is that (as already observed) the underlying problem is the design and layout, so handing out tickets for a week or two is unlikely to achieve anything much at all.

"And just because women are a bit better represented in positions of influence and power, less likely to be raped, less likely to be forced into marriage, less likely to suffer FGM in this country than say....Saudi Arabia" A bit better? Were you trying to prove your own point by saying something ridiculous, on the basis that you are immune from criticism because you are 'vocalising your sense of injustice and oppression'? "I really don't want to get into the issues in the UK as I am not well informed enough" I think that's evident - you should stick with your instincts.

Also, to add, that there are lots of people and groups in the UK who have been working tirelessly for many years to address issues concerning racial prejudice in policing and the courts, compared to whom the UK version of BLM look very much like a bunch of kids who think (as kids do) that only they know and/or care about stuff, like passionately, y'know?

"I'm really not sure what riles so many on this thread about the movement. Why can't the black community in your view come together in protest against unarmed shootings? There seems to be an under current of 'we don't really think you have it that bad, so just be quiet' among the objectors that I find unsettling." Is the BLM movement in the UK protesting about unarmed shootings in the US (in which case why are they blockading Heathrow instead of marching to the US embassy) or are they concerned about unarmed shootings in the UK (in which case, by any sensible comparison this is a vanishingly small problem, and there are better targets for their energy) I am sympathetic to any campaign to eradicate prejudice, especially from the law enforcement/criminal justice system, but I don't buy this.

The adoption of a slogan/movement from the US where the events and issues are obviously different is lazy and opportunistic, and likely to alienate people who would otherwise be sympathetic. IMHO. I'm one of those people.

I've used Questor for the last few years: https://www.questor-insurance.co.uk/car-hire-insurance.aspx?advertiserid=300325&gclid=COLK3Y_Cp84CFc4V0wodAlIDqg ?40/year to cover the usual ?1000 or so excess. Well worth it if you hire cars a few times a year.

"And you would have to pay your own legals, unless you win and get it paid by your neighbours :-( " I think it is anticipated that you can literally do-it-yourself i.e. without any professional legal help. There are loads of unrepresented parties in all sorts of cases these days and in my (albeit limited and anecdotal) experience the courts are pretty good at helping them along, and making the process a lot less daunting. That having been said, it's always better if you can sort something out without going to court. My reading of the OP was that that time may have passed. And this: "...any feasible 'citizen's means' to oblige Southwark to start enforcing the law, however belatedly" is a lot more difficult/complicated, from a legal perspective.

The law provides what is supposed to be an easy, low cost way for individuals to pursue this kind of nuisance in the courts. The provision is s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and Southwark provide specific guidance on how to do it: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/412/noise_problems/429/taking_your_own_legal_action/2 Rightly or wrongly, it appears that local authorities (not just Southwark) are increasingly advising people to do-it-themselves. You have to give notice of your intention to make an application, and in practice a court will want you to have tried to resolve the issue informally before starting the statutory process. There is plenty of other advice about this around on the internet and CAB or law centre may also be able to help.

"I'm not questioning you, but I've never heard that clearing snow from your path makes you responsible if somebody then slips on the ice. Equally, I've never heard that picking up rubbish from a public place makes you responsible if you leave a bit behind and somebody trips on it. I'd genuinely like to know what law says that, because it seems to me it would be a minefield." The law says various things about duties of care, negligence, whether things are reasonably foreseeable, blah blah blah. Neither of the situations above are likely to give rise to legal liability. However, a good law (for life) is that when someone who you are pretty sure doesn't know what they're talking about makes confident assertions about what the law says, and what 'everybody knows', that person is an ass.

But you said this: "The key item is the 32% tariff currently imposed by the EU on wines from elsewhere in the world." Which was wrong. It doesn't get any righter because other people were/are wrong about it. The 'whole story' is that this fact is inaccurate, and any argument premised on it's correctness needs to be re-examined. Not by me - I couldn't give a toss - but really by you, if you're going to keep posting. IMHO.

Jancis Robinson? I hope I never bought a car from you. These are straightforward factual matters, so please get it right. Link here to the tariff database operated by the European Commssion: http://madb.europa.eu/madb/datasetPreviewFormATpubli.htm?datacat_id=AT&from=publi It's not the easiest to navigate, so link here to a report published last year by the Australian Government, entitled "Impact of tariffs on Australian wine in the European Union" http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/aeufta/submissions/Documents/australian-grape-and-wine-authority-eufta-submission.PDF Tables 1 & 2, pages 4-5. As an aside, watching Green Goose and Lordship 516 coming to blows on this is like watching two schookids trying to solve General Relativity by seeing who can pee furthest up the wall.

The EU tariffs on wine are not any %age - they are charged per litre on a sliding scale determined by alcohol content. The tariff on a normal bottle is about 10p.

"Sorry, I genuinely don't understand - what do you mean by "posts by volume"?" You can gauge the activity on the forum by different measures. On a particular day, in a particular section, there might be 10 new threads started. On the same day, and including all the posts on both new and existing threads, there might be 200 new posts. The total volume of all the new posts might be 1000 lines of text. But 50 of the new posts might each consist of a single line of text, whereas three of them might in aggregate be 100 lines of text. The simple point I was trying to make was that in the last couple of weeks, my impression was that a couple of posters had accounted for a lot of the new stuff (measured by volume) and that it was very homogenous - big chunks of economic analysis + commentary. Obviously it's not up to me to dictate what people post, and evidently some people like it, and in any event it was probably just a slightly grumpy reaction from me than anything more serious. But, to put it into context, there is no shortage of this type of analysis - its constantly being churned out by all sorts of consultancies, think tanks etc. And also, in my world at least, it's used for specific things i.e. to inform current decision making where more information is almost always better than less. What it's never, ever used for is to provide an actual prediction of the future, other than in the most general and heavily qualified way.

"Very impressionistic - glancing at the first page of The Lounge I can only see one similar thread and that wasn't started by Lordship!" "When 50% by volume* of the posts on a particular day..." Posts by volume is different from numbers of threads - that's why I said it. Ultimately, everyone on here does whatever they want, subject to very light touch regulation. I just have an aversion to big blocks of dense text econ analysis with confident accompanying conclusions. I can get that any time at work.

When 50% by volume* of the posts on a particular day in the Lounge are this kind of analysis it gets a bit wearisome, particularly when half of it is in danger of being overtaken by events within the following 24 hours. *An impressionistic rather than mathematical conclusion.

Next time you feel like opening a thread can it be something other than re-hashed Bloomberg plus econ consultancy wonk product? For all our sakes? What do you think of M&S vs Iceland, for example?

As above, it's very well done, and in addition to the walk through sets there are loads of video clips and feature bits that are really good - there is a section about all the animals that were in the films, and how they were trained, for example, and another one all about animatronic monsters. We drove, booked an early entrance and then went for lunch nearby (we actually went for a Sunday curry buffet - it was great!). That avoided the cafe at the place, which seemed OK but was very, very busy.

"mummy and daddy falling off their perch to aspire to ED." Do you speak from experience? Rupert?

Streaky bacon, crispy fat but still bendy, Sliced granary bread, butter, brown sauce. Tea. Newspaper. For real authenticity, hangover.

"I suppose since a lot of you have me down as a right-wing fascist..." "....this whole country is being exploited by free-loaders" I think you've proved the point quite adequately by yourself.

It should be noted that neither using the official form nor sending all the docs set out in the guidance is actually a legal requirement - the permanent residence right is automatically acquired by EU/domestic law and the card is only evidence of it. See advice here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/how-to-make-a-permanent-residence-application/

Anybody who wants to know what T May's political philosophy is likely to be should read this: http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/03/nick-timothy-what-does-the-conservative-party-offer-a-working-class-kid-from-brixton-birmingham-bolton-or-bradford.html Although he's billed as 'former chief of staff' he's very much back in the fold, and was credited with writing her first speech as PM.

"After many years of thatcher and Blair, some have been indoctrinated to believe that a move to the right is the way forward. We have been duped into believing this, irrespective of whether it benefits us in the long term. Right now the rich are getting richer, and we have ascending numbers of food banks and homeless. Wages have been pushed down, employment rights decimated. The NHS is being dismantled, along with our education system. Wars for profit, and the displacement of millions of families. All a product of a move to the right. If that is what the centrist/Tory vote is about....not sure I want any part of it. Persuade me" This is kind of my point. We all know what you think. But what makes you think that lots of other people think the same as you think? If that's not too much thinking?