Marmora Man

Nice soundbite - meaningless phrase. If you disapprove of intolerance demonstrate that intolerance is wrong - by argument, humour, word and deed. Do not implement a ban. As a pretty fervent atheist I found Frank Skinner's recent defence of religion and puncturing of some Dawkinite atheist views both amusing and thought provoking. His was a classic example of a tolerant person confronting a form of intolerance.

Do they take away the blue boxes and blue bag for papers - or are these the first thing we put in the blue bins?

I have no views on the original question - I don't use cosmetics. I am not, like the OP, an evangelical vegan and I consider there are many, many, more important things to worry about. I do however support the testing of medicines and medical procedures on animals - believing, very sincerely, that this is for the greater good.

But it is worth recalling that the land was originally purchased and planned as a burial ground - it only became a recreation ground for the interim until demand required its use. In some ways an excellent example of long term planning on the part of the council back in the 50s (or perhaps earlier/later?).

Nashoi - you critique the current system but aren't proposing alternative systems. I agree entirely that the least well off should not pay tax - but I don't agree with this strange and economically illiterate belief that "the rich" can be endlessly milked to pay for costs of an expanded, and bloated, state. Loz has hit the spot - it's about where do you draw the line. CLearly you can't tax the high earners more than 250 times that of those at the bottom of the income ladder or they'll have nothing left from their income at all. So at what point does between a 90 x multiple that I'm proposing a return to and the 250 x "point of no return" multiple become unfair / fair?

I'm not arguing that the wealthy shouldn't pay more than those lower down the income scale. It is my contention thAt they already do and that the current rates are becoming punitive and a disincentive. I am questioning the rates and ratios between the two ends of the scale. Going back to my earlier example - Person A (on ?13,000 pa) pays 8% in tax and, in absolute terms ?835. Person C (on ?200,000 pa) is earning 15 times the salary but, in absolute terms, is paying 100 times as much tax at ?85,381. That's certainly progressive - but is it fair? As Hugenot has pointed out calling the wealthy greedy b*******s is not a helpful analysis. They form a vital part of the economic chain. Person C is, again in absolute terms, funding the equivalent of 4 band 4 nurses a year, or three junior teachers, or two middle management civil servants - a pretty significant contribution to the community. Additionally, if they are not salting all their disposable income away in pensions or overseas then their spending in the UK economy by buying "stuff" is also pretty significant - generating business in the retail, manufacturing and service sector and more tax take via VAT.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > does it? based on what? In that a senior representative of an EU institution raised the idea - albeit as an individual. Of course it may have been in a gently ironic way as our teasing of a French admiral was.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > :) > > Did you spark him up a marlboro and open his eyes > to the truth over a brandy at the Blenheim Bar? Nice idea - we weren't that up on 17th century land battles!

Let's add Will Hutton to the debate. Will proposes that there should be a relationshipbbetween the highest and lowest earners in a company ( he was discussing public sector roles - but supports the principal for the private sector, as does Vince Cable). Will Hutton's proposed ratio is 1 : 20, ie the highest salary should be no more than 20 times that of the lowest earner. If that is considered socially ethical, fair and appropriate how can, in absolute terms, taking 100 times more from the highest versus the lowest also be seen as fair? BTW - I proposed on this forum raising tax thresholds to ?10k about 3 years ago. I believe that the lowest quartile of employed should pay no tax at all and that over this threshold (roughly ?18,000) there should be a flat tax rate, so that every extra pound earned ( or profits generated by business ) is taxed at exactly the same rate. No loopholes, no special breaks.

They may be beautiful, but en masse I'd suggest they're not, they certainly blight some of the beautiful and wilder parts of the countryside that I love. More importantly is the fact that they appear to be inefficient in terms of energy saving /conservation and general commercial economics. It is my understanding that: a. A permanent back up of power generation is required to cover those periods when the wind doesn't blow -an event which, in winter, generally occurs during a period of high pressure, intense cold and high energy demand. b. The through life energy costs and CO2 creation are as high, per kilowatt generated, as modern low emission coal, gas or oil powered generation. For me - nuclear power followed by tidal and / or wave power are far better options, with less impact on the visual environment or wider countryside.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ah yes , renaming waterloo - pesky EU eh? > > another myth bites the dust That may be a myth (altho' it clearly has some basis in fact) but the following is true (I was there). Back in the day I was responsible for aspects of submarine operations, particularly for "water sharing" in the Atlantic where it was considered bad form for two boats to be operating in the same patch of water - hence we had NATO wide arrangements. The French, being French, and not totally signed up to NATO were not always co-operative. To develop and improve relations we invited a senior French admiral to visit, have talks at the Ministry of Defence, in Naval HQ in north London and spend time at sea in a Royal Navy submarine. the itinerary was: 09.30: Arrive Waterloo station 09.30. Travel to MoD (via Trafalgar Square) 12.30. Travel to NHQ - Northwood 15.30. Help to Faslane naval base - joint HMS Trafalgar for 36 hours familiarisation trip O/c Attend Trafalgar Night dinner - where the French liaison officer gave a very good speech explaining that, in fact, Admiral Nelson had lost that particular battle to the combined might of the French & Spanish navies.

Just some further thoughts on this following discussions elsewhere. Current Tax rules mean that: Person A earning half the average UK salary (2010) of ?13,000pa pays a total of ?835 in tax & NI. Effective rate 8.4% Person B earning the average UK salary of ?26,000pa pays ?5,957 in tax & NI. Effective rate 22.9%. The absolute sum paid is 7 times as much as Person A. Person C earning 20 times as much - ie ?200,000pa pays ?85,381 in tax & NI. Effective rate 42.9%. The absolute sum paid is 102 times as much as Person A and 14 times as much as Person B. Had the 50p tax rate and adjustments to tax threshholds not been made then Person C would have been paying 92 times as much as Person A and 13 times as much as Person B. This indicates, to me, that the wealthy were already "shouldering" a fair share of the burden as Lib Dems and Labour desire and that the increase to 50p and tax threshold adjustments were excessive and should be reversed at an early opportunity.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there anything free about a school that has a > religious doctrine at the core of it's identity? But they don't necessarily have religion "at their core" - some may, others may not. A theme is emerging that appears to be an attempt by opponents of free schools to smear the concept with this ridiculous allegation. Freedom is indivisible - if some choose to set up a religious based school or one committed to rigid Dawkinite atheism that's OK by me.

Sat next to Clare Holman (the forensic scientist in the follow on from Morse - Lewis) at Greenwich Picture House yesterday, while watching Tinker Tailor etc - V. Excellent film BTW. The sat opposite Ros Kemp at the Rivington Cafe at Greenwich Picture House.

Not in my case. I'm an atheist and have often argued this position on here. Strong values I support are decency, honesty, tolerance, pursuit of excellence, being the best at what you do / are.

Foxtn'sinLL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's what you think, if you haven't kept a good > reputation which success are you talking about. > Do you think Married couples will agree with you ! If I could understand this post I might reply. Could this be a bot?

MP - you know better than that. Free schools allow parents a greater say in their running but that does not mean that he schools will necessarily pander to fundamental religious views. Those that do will find themselves out on a limb with limited attendance fairly quickly. Those that deliver good and inspiring teaching, strong values, appropriate discipline and listen to the views of parents will, on the other hand, become successful with parents queuing to place their children there.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To stop flower stealing? And a locked gate stops that then?

I repeat - why lock them up anyway?

Agreed -how could I not?

I've said this before - I don't see the logic in closing and locking the parks. The committed will and do climb over and thru' the railings so it achieves very little in the way of security for users or park equipment / flora / fauna. If "cuts" are part of the issue - why not dispense with the locking up and the subsequently necessary unlocking. That should save money and make the parks more accessible. When we lived in the countryside - it was always available and accessible, as is Peckham Rye. Why should Londoners access to green space in more formal parked be rationed?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame that electricity sub station can;t be placed > under ground. > It original dimensions would have been required to > support electric switch gear. Such switch gear is > now a fractino of the size and burying it would be > quite feasible. > We'd then have a mini public square. Like this idea.

I never quite "get" the concern over timing of postal deliveries: 1. Most post, or at least my post, seldom contains anything of real importance or time critical. 2. Even if it does - how many people open a letter and immediately sit down and respond to the contents? 3. As long as the post arrives on a daily basis - surely we're OK? Post falls thru' letterbox, pick it up, open, read, take action if needed - anything from whooping with joy over big cheque from lottery / premium bonds / fairy godmother, writing back to granny with thank you note for the ?5 present, crying over the "Dear John" dumping and, very often, including dumping the junk mail into the bin / recycling bag,

Am planning an autumn holiday - and considering a few days in Cairo before spending time in a beach hotel in Oman. Advice on what to see / where to eat welcome - more so for Oman than Cairo, where there's so much that is obvious such as the Pyramids, Tahir Sq, museums etc but anything quirky and less travelled would be good to know about. Thanks

Thank you every one - I now have an elegant sufficiency of green toms and will resume chutney making tonight.