Marmora Man

The presumption should always be that it is safe - thinking otherwise sets up a victim mentality. That said self awareness makes sense - avoid dark streets, alleyways in rough neighbourhoods. I've travelled regularly from LB in the evening trains between 10 & 11 will be fairly busy with a mix of tired business people coming home after work or pub and other regular commuters. There's safety in crowds and your sister will be fine - the worse could be a slightly inebriated businessman falls asleep on her should

Go by train the night before - bed down at 12.00 midnight on a bench and set your phone for a wake up. Stansted Express from Liverpool St is a reasonable price - certainly cheaper than cab.

David - Johann Hari is a well known left wing polemicist. Long on rhetoric and very (very) short on facts. He puts no data into his argument. Just because he is published does not give his views any validity. Simple maths will defeat his position. By the end of 2009 UK Gov't was funding approximately 25% of its annual spend with debt. The debt was ratcheting upwards and the cost of servicing that debt was adding further to it - borrowing money to repay debt is not only Alice in Wonderland economics it leads to higher interest rates for gov't borrowing and the whole merry go round becomes an unstoppable positive feedback loop that, as S. American and other countries discovered in the 80's, leads inevitably to international loan default. Even with the coalition economic programme National Debt will still increase over the next 4 years, not decrease, but at a slower rate. In the subsequent coalition / Conservative government UK might be able to reduce its national debt and the cost of servicing it. As Labour and any informed commentator knows - total government spending will be higher at the end of this parliament than at the beginning. These are not savage ideological cuts that will take UK back to the dark ages, the coalition's programme represents some minimalist trimming of expenditure to bring government income and expenditure back into a form of balance by 2015. I personally would posit a far greater cut back of state spending - but I detest the willful misrepresentation of today's true position by left leaning commentators. They are perpetuating a con trick on the population that extending gov't debt and spending is a cost (and pain) free exercise and, conveniently, forgetting that the last Labour administration was planning almost identical cost reduction programmes - albeit over a slightly more extended period. Now Labour and its cheerleaders appear bereft of any rational plan, except opportunistic cat calling.

Local schools perhaps - they may not be quite as expensive as Clapham Common?

But if every entrepreneur stopped at ?150K there would be no new businesses of any real size. It's not personal taxes that fund gov't services in UK - it's business taxes. New businesses grow out of people becoming rich and richer [amnd vice versa] - I don't begrudge them their riches or feel cheated because Phillip Green, Alan Sugar or Richard Branson and their ilk have millions of pounds as a personal, self made, fortune. I cheer the businesses they have created - that have led to their personal wealth, thousands of jobs and billions in business taxes. On morality of taxes - you'll recall I'm a libertarian. I consider all taxes as immoral. It's up to those that frame tax law to do it better - not for individuals to voluntarily give to fund government spending. Money in individuals pockets is inevitably spent better and more wisely than money in government budgets. Individuals may make charitable donations if they have cash to spare. On Care UK - I've competed against them - and if they hoped that ?21K would buy them preferential treatment they've been rooked. They are losing contracts everywhere - on quality and price. On Trident - I'm quoting MoD budget figures derived from a personal friend (1SL) and another still serving in submarines. AGree there can be a difference - but your annual figure wqould give a thru' life cost of ?90bn - which is just not realisti.

More Fisk - I'm afraid! david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mamora Man - as Choppy Minton says, there is no > place for violence in these sorts of > demonstrations. But I'm sure you already know > that. As you will also know that the vast majority > of protesters were peaceful. In fact my admittedly > terrible maths works out it was less than 0.05% > who were involved in any mess. > > As for the rest of your concerns....(with > apologies for the fisk) > > Huge Reserves: No they're not > Agreed > > Helping fat cat friend: No they're not Really? There would appear to be some private healthcare firms who will do pretty nicely from the Healthcare Reform Bill that coincidentally have contributed significantly to Tory coffers. Can you identify these companies? I work in this sector and can assure you that no one company feels advantaged. Additionally, every gov't changes tax regimes, incentives and disincentives to stimulate the economy in a fashion that reflects their political philosophy. This doesn't, of itself, imply favouritism or fat cat friendship > > Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than > ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate - > higher levels will not generate significant sums > (if at all) > I'm unsure on this. My instinct is to suggest that the "rich" (your quotes) could probably pay more,but in the current economic climate I think there is a need to stimulate growth and for the time being this would not be well served by tax> raises. Agree - stimulating growth is the key (see above). However, taking 62% of every pound earnt above ?100K is not likely to inspire the average entrepreneur to set up a new business and try to make him / herself rich [unless, of course you, or others, have philosophical objections to the concept of "rich'] - and in the course of doing so give employment to others. At the other end of the financial scale the "benefits trap" is acknowledged as a disincentive to find work when by taking on employment means losing up to 85p for every ? earned. It's wrong and illogical for those trying get out of benefits and it's wrong and illogical for those trying to progress and reward themselves and their hard work. > > Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas > Do you have evidence to suggest this or is it a > hunch? I'd be more inclined to focus on the large > scale tax-avoidance by large companies costing > billions every year, however. Remember, tax avoidance is legal. It's merely arranging your finances so as to maximise personal / company income in accordance with prevailing tax law. Several companies have re-located overseas in last two / three years to avoid the UK tax regime [personal & corporate] which is perceived as unfavourable. One has already announced possibility of returning in response to the Budget's 2% reduction in Corporation Tax > Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year > Other figures have put the cost at closer to ?3bn a year - not an inconsiderable chunk of change. I don't think it should be off the table. Trident replacement build and running costs are estimated as circa ?15bn - with an estimated life of 30 years. = ?500m pa. Your ?3bn a year would represent almost 10% of the total annual Defence budget, and nearly 30% of the Navy's annual budget. > Oh and too far, too fast. An opinion I understand - but don't agree with. Credibility is all - and Portugal* - widely recogniosed to be unwilling to embrace real and tough deficit cuts is now paying nearly 8% o for gov't borrowing - almost twice that being paid by UK, which is recognised by international finance as having a credible and realistic deficit reduction programme. * You can, of course, add Eire, Greece and probably Spain to the list of nations whose poor / unenforced deficit reduction plans are creating high interest rates for gov't borrowing

paulj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the newcomers to the ED P Rye area - the Irish > community have been the pre-dominant 'ethnic' > group in the area for over 40 years. The majority > of contributors to the festival are charities, > volunteers and those receiving expenses only. It > has been part of the summer culture for decades. > Big Society ? Big Society is organising, finding volunteers, raising funds and so on yourself. Why should charities and volunteers receive expenses? from the council

Didn't start the fire

nicko Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is just idle gossip and nothing to do with > police incident but I parked at the top end of > Glengarry Road on Saturday afternoon while the > missus ran into William Rose and witnessed what I > can only describe as two 'crackheads' - man and > woman, buying something from a couple of people in > a car. They then wandered off further down that > road. Whike this case may, or may not, have been a drug deal there is no doubt that drug deals are carried out on street corners in East Dulwich - and seem to me to be more overt and blatant. This implies that the dealers (and customers) are not concerned about police action. Discussions on the subject on this forum have, broadly, taken a liberal, anti authoritarian stance that such activity isn't important. However, if the "broken window" theory is believed then ignoring these low level crimes sets a general tone that leads to the next level being ignored and so on - eventually ceding control of areas to criminality. Drug gangs and associated rivalry for territory and power involves guns. Stating the b******g obvious involving guns leads to their use, injury and death. Stronger policing of the low level drug deals might reduce the likelihood of gun crime in the future. > 2+2=5 but worth noting.

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Atticus, unless absolutely necessary, it > would be a real shame to lose this event. Has > anyone been there and not bumped into someone they > know? That's how it's always felt to me. I bump into people I know all the time - I don't need a council tax subsidised event to make that happen. There's "nice to have" and "must have" categories in council spending -the Irish Festival falls squarely in the former category.

This is what dog crap can lead to!

A very good article Here

The fact that not everyone can afford to attend a festival is not a reason for Southwark Council to subsidise or organise a free festival. Lives are not blighted by not attending a festival. If he Irish community (or any other community) wants a knees up - it's up to them to organise and fund. You demonstrate soft and compassionate illogical thinking Atticus - someone always pays. Not everyone can afford a car, a holiday, a five bedroom house, should the council also provide these at no cost to the user but at a cost to council tax payers?

Witsd, The Defence budget is a tad over ?30bn- cancelling it in its entirety would only clear approx 15% of the annual deficit, more suggestions for cuts please.

I'm only asking as I cannot see the point. I can see that there's a rational debate to be held about the pace and depth of "cuts" - but that's not what's happening. The alternative set out by the TUC seem to consist of a combination of conspiracy theory - "they" are hiding huge reserves of cash somewhere and are helping their fat cat friends evade tax, with naivety - that higher taxes on the "rich" along with a "Robin Hood" tax on banks combined with cancelling Trident will resolve the deficit crisis. The answers are: Huge Reserves: No they're not Helping fat cat friend: No they're not Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate - higher levels will not generate significant sums (if at all) Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year The problem simply stated is that government spending at the end of the last parliament was funded by approximately 25% of borrowing - roughly spending out ?750B against taxes in of ?560B annually. The rate at which Britain is borrowing cannot be sustained. Raising taxes will not close the gap - nor will waiting from growth and inflation to erode the value of the shortfall. Therefore the only option is to reduce spending. The two Coalition Budgets have "reduced" spending by reducing the rate at which government spending grows so that by then end of this parliament it will be at 2006 levels adjusted for the average growth rate achieved between 2006 and 2015. In absolute terms government spending will increase year on year in every one of the next four years. I had this argument with two very earnest but ill informed cheerleaders for yesterday's march outside the Co-Op, last week. Reasoned argument didn't seem to dent their confidence that the Government can continue to spend money it doesn't have. EDited to make gov't spending numbers more accurate.

My car was targeted last night - filler cap ripped off. Might have been disappointed as it's a diesel. 4 week wait for new filler cap due to need to match colour. B******s

A recent flyer from the Alliance for Workers Liberty - formerly the Socialist Organiser - probably will have another name next year Libya: "Marxists, 'Humanitarian Intervention' and Imperialism" The Western military intervention in Libya poses complex questions for socialists. > Should we really oppose limited military action to aid the rebellion against Qadaffi? > Or is such opposition the only way to remain principled opponents of US, UK etc militarism and imperialism? > If the US, UK, NATO have not changed their spots - and of course they haven't - is 'No intervention the only thing we can say? > Beyond that, is 'Humanitarian Intervention' just old-style imperialism under a new guise? > What do 'imperialism' and 'anti-imperialism' mean in today's world? Could be a stonking discussion but I doubt it will come to any decision or have any impact in the real world where people are dying in Libya; gunned down by Qadaffi's forces or missiled by NATO forces. But then, for committed socialists - opposition and righteousness is far more fun than doing something.

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Townleygreen > That's as i would have hoped/thought. > > @MM > Surely if illegal, it's simply a matter for the > local police? - POssibly -= but just figured a quiet word from councillor might be simpler. more low key and appropriate.

One for Mr James Barber.

tompaine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2291/276/ > > http://www.countmeout.me.uk/ > > seeeeeeeeee ya! Tompaine, the existence of poorly presented and illogically argued websites that reflect your own warped views does not confer any legitimacy to your position. The web is a wonderful thing - enabling small groups of like minded idiots to meet each other and persuade themselves that many share their views. To date this thread appears to be 99% against your position.

All depends on your start point - the No 12 goes from Dulwich Library to Oxford Circus, stopping just before and after Piccadilly Circus, which is a short walk to the Ritz. Two Oyster journeys a day would, I think, cost ?2.80 - so good value, tho' the journey time would be about 50 mins each way but he should be sure of a seat on the inbound journey.

Tompaine - I agree with DJKQ - and the broad thrust of Hugenot's points. You are missing the point completely - boycotting the census will have absolutely zero impact on Lockheed - they'll still do the job they've been contracted for and will still be paid. All you will have achieved is to dilute, by a very small degree, the quality of the data that the country uses to make rational decisions about supply of essential services - including your own Fire Service.

The UN resolution wasn't just about "no fly" it was about preventing Gaddafi from prosecuting reprisals on Benghazi and the opposition and thus requires the targeting of more Thant just anti aircraft batteries. PS: A no fly zone always involves missiles a d attacks on anti aircraft installations - these include radar sites, surface to air missile sites and military HQs. Otherwise your own aircraft are too vulnerable.

For a balanced view see BBC Article

There's just one problem - it will be very very difficult to UK to take more than a token part in the no fly zone patrols given the recent SDSR decisions. A working aircraft carrier and squadron of Harriers would be a huge asset right now - but one was paid off last week and the Harrier pilots given notice a few weeks earlier. I voted for D Cameron and still applaud his economic analysis and programme - but he has yet to join up the country's foreign and defence policy properly.