Marmora Man

Twirly, I've slept in worse places than a train and usually manage a decent night's sleep - maybe I'm just lucky?

The top cost trip includes a double room with ensuite shower & WC, plus a silver service meal in nrestaurant car and breakfast in the morning - which covers many of the downsides mentioned. This version looks as if it would come out at about ?250 per person round trip - which if we look at it as part of the holiday is not a huge premium to pay to avoid the plane given that it includes two nights accomodation and two nights meals. I'm investigating returing during the day so as to reduce cost and take in the scenery.

Has anyone done this trip? Looks less hassle and probably more fun than "Sleazy Jet" altho' clearly more expensive. Eurostar to Paris, overnight sleeper - with dinner & breakfast included - Paris to Barcelona. Go to sleep in France wake up in Spain. Man at Seat 61 - Advice tells all about it - but I'd prefer some EDF feedback if poss?

The Lycean Way along southern Turkey coast, looks a good long distance walk, beside the sea with the added pleasure of following in Alexander the Great's footsteps

Thanks - have recycled the iMac to my great nephew - but it's good to know about crisp.

I thought the Roman Fort story and Iron Age fort site at Dawson Heights were both urban myth making and had been scotched on this forum a couple of years ago?

It's worthy of note that, 30 year papers have revealed, that the UK gov't at the time of the hunger strikes was making overtures to address some of IRA demand in order to allow the IRA to call off the hunger strikes - these were rejected by the IRA. I assume as they preferred to have martyrs for a cause that a negotiated concession to their demands.

I'd recommend Istanbul highly - the Blue Mosque, Aya Sofia, the Roman Cistern, Topkapi Palace - all great spots to wander around. For the younger there's also a pretty lively nightlife. Also, if you're truly organised it's possible to visit the Scutari barracks where Florence Nightingale walked with her lamp - but as it's still a working Turkish Army barracks you need to send in requests and proofs of identity. If you're feeling brave"ish" a vista too Cairo and its environs is worthwhile - we did this in October '11 and caught the place between riots and revolutions. It meant the museums & market were far less crowded, even the Great Pyramids and Sphinx were relatively empty, while some of the pyramids further afield had no visitors whatsoever. Longer haul - I've still to achieve my ambition to walk in the Himalyan foothills.

Chippy, most (but not quite all) the "rights" you list were either a licence for old fashioned trades unions to disrupt and impede business. The majority of enlightened people view businesses as partnerships between the workforce and the management to ensure efficient and cost effective production. It is not a battlefield where Dickensian capitalists exploit the poor and oppressed slum dwelling workers. Come into the 21st century and lose your prejudices.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a manager, of course you would think them frivoulous. You do have a strange and archaic view of management and industrial relations. "Them and us" confrontation is not what happens these days.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a manager, of course you would think them frivoulous. What a strange and archaic view you have of industrial relations.

Of course your stats could be interpreted as evidence that the majority of unfair dismissal claims are frivoulous - this would reflect my onw experience of 20 years as a manager in the healthcare sector.

I wasn't cricising the film, which I acknowledge I haven't bothered to watch, I was criticising NK. However I see the usual suspects are already promulgating another conspiracy theory. Linking the banning of school milk in Chile & UK with the libertarian / monetarist economic theories of Milton Friedman is just bizarre.

NK is the political obessive's political obssesive. EVERYTHING is a right wing wing corporatist conspiracy to her. Even attempting to question her stance and philosophy is seen, by her, as evidence of a conspiracy to silence her.

1, Penultimate home (latest of 9 in a 23 year marriage)before moving to Cornwall. 2, Victorian Red Brick 3, Peckham Rye grass and daffodils 4, Victorian windows and architraves 5, Owner of Pretty Traditional Greengrocers & owner of William Rose Butchers 6, Saturday morning around 11.00 having shopped for weekend food, bought a rose for my wife at the Fresh Flower Company and thinking about a coffee. 7, Our House 8, Home made barbequed lamb kebabs - cooked on our roof terrace overlooking London skyline 9, Sunny & crystal clear

Lady D - you need to read the papers released under the 30 year rule more carefully and not just twitch / twitter as a knee jerk response every time Lady Thatcher's name is mentioned. Her Cabinet, under her chairmanship, discussed all sorts of options regarding Liverpool post the Toxteth riots but, in the end, provided significant regeneration funds under the control of Michael Heseltine. On today's discussion on Radio 4 Heseltine made very clear that she would not allow the "managed decline" that was one of the Treasury options put forward. You might also note that in the released papers was a note from her criticising the proposed costs of redecorating No. 10 as too high and identifying those costs that she would bear personally.

D-C, you appear to be so concerned to be non judgemental that you are unable to see a wide picture. You are also attributing views to me that I have never expressed. I won't bother to fisk you post above - but it's mostly rubbish. It is clearly impossible to have a rational discussion on this subject on this forum. I am withdrawing - bloodied but unbowed and with my views unchanged.

I prefer a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year - but each to their own.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Divorce rates are certainly at a low.. for the > moment. As a marriage rates, of course. > > > Are you against civil partnerships for hetero > couples, MM? NO - I'm just in favour of stable relationships and believe marriage to be a better form of stable relationship.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > b. If a couple are unable / unwilling to commit to > marriage then this lack of commitment raises > questions about their commitment to the two person > unit and any eventual family group or children of > that partnership. > > c. All relationships go through highs and lows but > that a commitment made in front of friends and > relatives (religious, secular, formal or informal) > is an encouragement to stick it out. This does not > have to be a formal marriage - but this historic > formal commitment has been shown to work best. > > > Now you're just being plain obnoxious. There will > be plenty of people on here in exactly that > situation who don't particularly like being > preached or moralised to in this manner. I'm just > one of them. > > I come from a family littered with divorces. I've > seen more unhappy marriages than I'd ever care to. > Suggesting that I should marry my current partner > to fit your outdated stereotypes of what a > "family" is not only patronising in the extreme > but logically unsound and ideologically > hypocritical. > > As a social liberal I'm not in the habit of > lecturing in how best to raise children. As a > libertarian, I'm amazed you think government > should be spending tax payers money on such a > hair-brained scheme. A certain degree of hysteria seems to be creeping in. I'm not telling you what to do - I'm simply stating an opinion. You are free to disagree as you obviously do but don't tell me I'm preaching. I haven't suggested you marry your current partner (which by the way is a phrasing that doesn't imply permanency - tho' I'm sure you didn't mean it to be read that way). However, you will not, I am sure, dispute that some children are brought up in less than ideal circumstances where poverty (of thought and finance), deprivation and lack of aspiration are rife, others are lucky enough to be brought up in a comfortable, stable and loving environment. There is a spectrum of situations in which children are reared between these two extremes. The majority of marriages tend to be toward the positive end of the spectrum, as are many unmarried families. However, the negative end of the spectrum does have, as a characteristic, more unmarried, single parent, multiple partner households. As I have implied before - suggesting that those at the negative end of the spectrum marry is not a solution. However, giving people in that situation and their offspring encouragement to aspire to a more stable way of life as epitomised by the majority of marriages is surely a good thing. BTW - its "hare-brained" not "hair-brained" Someone else has commented on divorce rates - according to Wikipedia "One in every three UK marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce. The rate of divorce had been dropping this century. In 2007 the divorce rate in England and Wales was recorded at 11.5 people per every 1000 ( less than 1.2%) of the married population. This was the lowest divorce rate since 1979. In 2010, divorce rates rose 5% over 2009 (taking it to 1.26%)." As state before the beak up of marriages with children is at a far lower rate than the overall statistic.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Magpie, I think you are confusing the issue by talking about single-parent vs two parent families. That isn't what the debate is about. > The issue is about whether marriage results in a demonstrably more stable family environment (it doesn't), and whether the government should interfere in people's lifestyles and punish those who disagree (they shouldn't). EXCEPT that marriage can be demonstrated to reduce the likelihood of break up and the creation of one parent families. A review of 2010 census data indicated that fewer than one in ten married parents have split by the time a child is five, whereas more than one in three, who were not married, will have split. Where parents were not living together when a child is born the break-up rate is greater than one in two. We do know that single parenthood tends to be closely associated with greater poverty for women and children, associated with poor performance at school, associated with greater levels of depression and other undesirable outcomes. Supporting marriage, stating clearly that it is a positive move and making it something that young people and couples aspire to harms no one and would deliver positive outcomes. I know I'm arguing against the routine EDF "right on ness" and general "Guardianista" approach. I also acknowledge the issue of correlation and causation, which can often confuse the obvious - but believe that: a. The current benefits system actually encourages single parenthood - reducing a single mother's income if her boyfriend moves in or if she marries. (this may change if Iain Duncan Smiths proposals regarding a single unified benefit do come into being b. If a couple are unable / unwilling to commit to marriage then this lack of commitment raises questions about their commitment to the two person unit and any eventual family group or children of that partnership. c. All relationships go through highs and lows but that a commitment made in front of friends and relatives (religious, secular, formal or informal) is an encouragement to stick it out. This does not have to be a formal marriage - but this historic formal commitment has been shown to work best. d. Causal "coupledom" maybe a lifestyle some choose and, as a libertarian, I would never seek to outlaw valid choice, however there nothing wrong in pointing out that statistically that it is not a recipe for ensuring a stable, life long relationship and good outcomes for children. So in priority order for any potential grandchildren that may join the Marmora Man family I would prefer: 1. That they are part of a loving married family. 2. That they are part of a loving family where the parents have made some form of public commitment to their relationship. 3. That if there is just one parent the child / children remain firmly part of a loving and supportive family group and network that includes grandparents.

I'm another supporter of the Sally Army. My grandmother was a member and used to tell tales of her "branch" regularly saving a particular drunk who would sign the pledge, get a new suit, pawn the suit and get drunk again in time to be saved again the following fortnight. She ended her days taking gin in her tea as a medicinal precaution. I gave early this year to them in Oxford St.

? A belief in the benefits of marriage is not incompatible with my libertarian instincts. I do not mandate it, I do not ask the government to legislate to make it compulsory. ? As for the causation / correlation arguments - yep I understand statistics too. However, I am not suggesting, and nor is that government, that marriage of itself will reduce the incidence of broken families, strssed teenagers, early pregnancies. What is being suggested is that being married is a signal of stability, confidence in the future, long term thinking and planning. The by product of these necessary attributes that lead to marriage are the positive outcomes for children and society in general. So sending a small signal that government approves, makes sense to me. Those that disagree remain free to ignore the small applauding signal ( or bribe - depending upon stance) and do their own thing. If the government were to make it compulsory to marry before allowing children to be born I would be in the vanguard with fellow protesters - but this is not the case.

Old Compton Street, Soho - opposite Camisa Brothers. Can't remember the name but it has just about every kind of alcohol known to man.

So the EDF has spoken. Marriage is old fashioned, misogynistic and does nothing for society or children. Furthermore any attempt by government to persuade people to marry, and remain married, is an inappropriate intervention into personal lives. EXCEPT - it's worth reading some of the research and a background paper that preceded the floating of the policy idea. Have a look at the Centre for Social Justice website. A brief summary is below: The "brokeness" in society and the riots of the summer were / are not simply about lack of money. These problems are driven by a number of factors: ? family breakdown, ? educational failure, ? intergenerational worklessness ? welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addiction ? severe personal debt. These are interconnected - children who experience family breakdown are more likely to fail at school. Those failing at school, surrounded by a culture of worklessness, are more likely to end up unemployed and on benefits. Debt as well as drug and alcohol abuse also tend to emerge when an individual?s life appears to have no purpose. Destructive and demoralising patterns of life tend to be passed from one generation to another. Breaking the link between parenthood and marriage has, arguably, introduced instability into society in general, and into the poorest communities in particular, because informal partnering greatly increases the risk of single parenthood. Fewer than one in ten married parents have split by the time a child is five, whereas more than one in three, who were not married, will have split. Where parents were not living together when a child is born the break-up rate is ghreater than one in two. MM says: The fact is that marriage is good for children and good for society - it is therfore both rational and appropriate that government(s) promotes what is good for children and good for society. The policy does not demand or require marriage - it is not enforcing change, but merely signalling, with a relatively small sum of money, that government approves of marriage. Nor is not a black and white equation where approval of something must mean disapproval of something else. The taxation policy is but one, small, part of a wider strategy to tackle similar and related issues.