Marmora Man

Perhaps then owner od the land could pay them ?1.00 to "guard" his premises?

UDT - until / unless you remove your final paragraph I will not dignify your posts with a response. I enjoy political knockabout and robust discussion but to be likened to a mass murderer is simply offensive.

Stick with it - I appealed to a different but equally frustrating and vexatious traffic fine. Eventually, having pursued all avenues of appeal the council gave way 2 days before me appearing in person before an independent appeals tribunal. It is as DJKQ says - they make it deliberately difficult, time consuming and boring to pursue the appeal - but it does feel good when the righteous win.

Did anyone else find this in his opening remarks to the TUC somewhat lacking in taste?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll see if we have any on our allotment, although > I think the wife has already picked most of > them... Thanks

No not me this time - but if there're any green toms for the taking I'm up for it.

UDT - I am tempted to ignore your post. In responding to it I was criticising your apparent closed mind and kneejerk anti Tory reaction rather than necessarily defending or promoting Conservative policies. I'm not quite sure why I am accused of arrogance - but perhaps it's your default criticism of anyone that indicates a degree of Conservative thinking or support for the right of centre view. I note you haven't criticised the policies themselves - only the supposed fact that they were originally the policies of others. Of course the Conservative Party policies have a history - political ideas, policies and processes are memes - they evolve and change as they develop from tiny seeds of an idea somewhere, are modified and tested in discussions and debate, are tried in part in certain places, modified and evolve again and so on. To ignore successful ideas and policies would be to exhibit a closed mind, not something the Conservative party or the current Coalition is inclined to. Michael Gove's Free Schools policy does, indeed, have its roots in Sweden. It also builds on the previous government's Academy programme. However, it also incorporates long standing Conservative beliefs in the power of education and its ability to free people from the shackles of poverty and deprivation. The latter element being a core belief of both Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove. To me that's good news - children, and society will benefit. I see no problem with this. I am not sure why you decry the possibility of a school making a profit. Few, of any political persuasion, would argue that top private schools are not successful - in that the children lucky enough to be taught in them achieve high grades in exams, enjoy fantastic sports facilities and emerge as well read, articulate adults, ready to engage with the world. Just what we would wish all schools to deliver - yet private schools do so by generating a surplus of income over costs every year. They must do so, as they are charities and are not permitted to trade at a loss. I am very relaxed (to borrow a New Labour phrase) about the possibility of schools making a profit just as long as they succeed in their core task of educating children well and effectively. Particularly, if the free schools can demonstrate the ability to provide high quality education at a lower cost than the current spending by LEAs and the Department of Education on what is, in too many cases, a poor education. Labour and localism - this must be an ironic comment. The Blair / Brown administration was one of, if not the most, centralising in the political history of the last century. Personally, I doubt that the Conservative policy on localism will get as far as I would wish or that the party's rhetoric would have us believe. However, the direction of travel is correct and I wish it every success; it will be a tough policy to deliver. The ability of the government civil service to accrete power to the centre remains undiminished - and the current debate over devolving planning powers to a more local fora are an example of this tendency to belittle the ability of local communities to make their own decisions. On economics - I wish the Coalition would follow the Canadian example - that restructuring of the government budget and spending was swift, ruthless and successful. Circumstances dictate that in UK such action is not, however desirable and necessary following a decade of irresponsible spending, possible - but George Osborne is doing reasonably well - now needs to get the growth element of the strategy working. I'll now get back to my day job - which at present is developing a charitable outreach / satellite clinic for respiratory therapy services to NHS patients in SE London, Kent, Surrey and Sussex - a "good ole Tory" type of role. Edited for spelling / grammar.

Anyone with any green tomatoes? I'm looking for about 2kg having just burnt our green tomato chutney. No veg to swap, but prepared to offer processed grapes (aka -wine)

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM. You've only just discovered Chez Bruce. Where > have you been? > Next you'll be telling me you haven't been to > Dinner yet. We live a quiet and sheltered life in Chez Marmora

Having just b******d up 10lb of green tomato chutney made with home grown, but green, toms I now want to make some more that doesn't have that elusive "burnt saucepan" flavour. But where can I buy 2 kg of green tomatoes. All advice welcome. PS: Will also be following up on the burnt jam pan thread to clean off the preserving pan.

We should applaud and support the student's free enterprise. If this small start leads to them becoming successful then they may want to consider formalising their trading arrangements - but hawking as a low cost start up tactic seems fine to me - and adds to the bustle of Northcross Market. Of course bureaucrats always see the "thin end of the wedge" and will / would argue that if they allow one they'll have to allow all. Bah humbug I say - let them trade.

I have just returned from a celeberatory dinner at Chez Bruce, Wandsworth. What can I say - food fantastic, service exemplary, wines and wine list truly inspiring. Not cheap but that very special occasion I can recommend it wholeheartedly. 8 years in SE London and this was my first visit - I've wasted so much time.

UDT - a classic closed mind response to Northlondoner - "I'm right - you're wrong". A good balanced debate. Have you looked at the work of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice - have you really listened to Damian Green's views, have you checked out the rationale behind Michael Gove's changes to schooling. You appear lost in the mythical past of a student selling the Socialist Worker - longing to cry "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out" again.

If the whole road is to be reviewed - fine. If it's just the Colyton Road lights - get rid of them. Traffic flow has been far worse and, in consequence, more dangerous including high speed rat runs. A comprehensive review looking at the needs of road users (cars & motor bikes & cycles & buses), pedestrians, shops and residents on Forest Hill Road and adjacent roads should / could come up with a far better solution than the current mess.

The army has suspended the soldiers identified if they are still serving and asked the military police to investigate whether charges can be brought against them, and those that have since left the the army.

Agree - A pint of Youngs was a rare joy, the beer and their pubs were oases of pleasure in the desert of keg beer in the 70s. The upside is that CAMRA and devotees did reverse the keg revolution, epitomised by Watney's Red Barrel, leading to the creation of many new breweries. Long live Doom Bar and many other fine ales.

I would think that bomb (or V1 / V2) damaged properties and associated rubble / waste arising would be very similar to industrial slag - could that be part of the answer? Alternatively, Ruskin Park is alongside the Denmark Hill railway line and industrial slag was often used as the below track stabiliser / filler so could the creation of / maintenance of the railway line also be responsible for leaving behind some industrial slag?

What is more important in the discussion regarding the 50p tax rate? 1. The perception it creates that the 320,000 earning above ?150,000pa are "in this together" and paying their share 2. The actual absolute sum it raises in revenue for Gov't 3. The potential negative impact on entrepreneurs and wealth creators A rational observer would ignore the perception issue and concentrate on points 2 & 3. If the absolute sum raised (after costs of collection) is negligible and there is an actual / probable negative impact on wealth creators then the rate should be abolished. If the absolute sum raised is substantial (say > ?2bn) and there is little / no evidence of a negative impact on wealth creators - leave it unchanged. However, in all probability it will be politics that takes precedence as the comment on the BBC 50p Tax Rate story demonstrates. It would take a brave politician to make a rational decision in the face of such a mob.

e-dealer, Do you require someone to look out for you everywhere you are? You could be mugged in the street, on a bus, in a crowd, in a pub, on Peckham Rye or anywhere else. You might be alone or accompanied. What makes a station so special? What additional duty of care should a travel company have - beyond providing you with transport and a place to catch that transport?

Of course it's a problem - the question is how to tackle them. To what extent in a democracy is it right to stifle opinions, however objectionable? Let them wither in the sunlight of contempt, rational argument and humour - don't persecute them into a martyr complex.

I have used E Dulwich station now for almost two years. as I use an auto top up Oyster card I have never felt the need to use the ticket office. I would think that this is probably the case for 80% of travellers. Keeping the ticket office manned is unlikely to affect safety - if they have to be in the ticket office they'll not be on the platform looking after passengers. High fares are criticised - but this seems to me a fairly rational decision.

SC - you're just tinkering with alternative fund raising proposals and falling into the Gordon Brown fallacy - the more complex you make the tax system the more you need to meddle to put right the anomalies that the last tinkering created. All your proposals involve taking away accumulated assets that have been purchased with post tax income. Unfair! As has been pointed out taxing earnings is simple and understandable. A flat rate is even easier to understand and collect. Reducing the cost of the state would also reduce the tax burden, incentivise hard work, enterprise and make it easier to accukmulate wealth that reduces the individual's burden on the state (wealthy tend to pay for their own healthcare, eductation, travel and don't object to paying fair taxes for common goods such as policing, roads, parks, libraries, dustmen and so on). This is my preferred solution. I put to you a binary question: Should the size of the state be restricted to what the nation can afford to raise in taxes? Yes or No?

No the two alternatives presented were absurd. The state can always reduce the cost / burden on the taxpayer. It not essential that it funds all that it does. As you said you don't know your right from your left. You seem to be proposing reducing income tax to make it easier to accumulate assets which would then be confiscated by the state in order to reduce income tax. This is both a circular argument and a paradox. Clever stuff - except that it's illogical and unfair.

In general Hugenot and I can be guaranteed to be on opposite sides of any argument - but I've made an exception in this case and one other (Mansion Tax) in the Drawing Room. Regardless of our differing political philosophies, I do respect his ability to put forward an intellectually coherent and logically based argument. Whereas you appear to be only capable of cutting, pasting and rambling - and, of course, being rude.

Your alternatives are not truly alternative so rationally it is impossible to select one or the other - but if you press me, then 2.