Marmora Man

EDMummy - the EDF has debated this subject, there are differing views but I, personally, believe that the best place for a memorial or shrine is at the grave of the individual and not the site of the accident. If it were intensely personal then it would be maintained and kept clear. This is not the case, it is just unsightly and time for it to go, in my opinion.

James, Can we ask the council to clear up / remove the memorial at the Peckham Rye / East Dulwich Road crossroads. It is now over three months since the accident and sad death of a child. The flowers have faded, the poems are smudged. I think it is time to clear up - some others have differing feelings but, overall, most seem to agree that there should be a time limit on such shrines.

Is it possible to adjust the limit to something greater than 614K? Very few cameras have a setting at less than 1 mega pixel and it's not always possible to edit down to the limit.

A MAC, a MAC, a MAC. I have had mine for nearly 7 years, have upgraded memory and RAM - still as stylish and functional as day 1. Never had a virus, never had a crash. If you're a Office / Outlook fan it is possible to get Microsoft for MAC software, tho' MAC e-mail, address book, Safari etc are all better than MS.

William Rose are running butchery courses - that's a skill you could take overseas.

One question - one observation. Question - can the poll detect multiple voting? It happens for the X Factor, Strictly etc - hope the technology can prevent it here. Observation - it could give Tessa & Harriet something to think about.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually the more I think about it the charge that > I'm saying "nothing will ever change" pisses me > off. Lazy argument But SEan - isn't it lazy not to posit an alternative and then promote and / or defend it?

If you want a small insight into Henry Porter's current thinking read his book a "A Dying Light". It's fiction and I bought it at an airport thinking it was generic airport lit written to while away too many hours in the air. It was much better than that, extrapolating current restrictions on civil liberty into the near future, with a nice thriller twist otr two. Independent Review

Hugenot, AS ever you misrepresent me. I decried the knife law - yes. I haven't suggested any further complication of it at all. I would argue for a simplification to "Carrying an offensive weapon, with intent". This would allow cooks to carry their knives home from work, boy scouts to continue to wear sheath knives and my fellow SWiss Army knife fans to carry on in cars and briefcases. Reduced business regulation - allows businesses to expand, benefiting all those that work in the business. If the owner / entreprenuer benefits to a greater extent that, to me, is reward for the risk taken. It's not about the "wealthy becoming wealthier" - that's just spouting student union level gibes, its about the economy benefiting. Equally, I cannot remember arguing for reduced social legislation to reduce the rights of the less fortunate. Tho' I do, and have always, argue for greater self responsibility and greater local charity and support to wean us all off the almighty government can solve all attitude.

Sean, I won't attrempt to rebut your points one by one - Hugenot would slay me. However, if business was offered the chance to operate in a country with a low corporation tax rate and low tax rates for employees and freedom to conduct its business as it wished (and I do not mean ignore health & safety / environment etc) where it was not alternately directed, cajoled, bullied or encouraged and had its tax rates adjusted up / down / sideways or as an alternative was offered the chance to go to a spot where gov't offered a great subsidy but none of the freedoms listed - most would opt for the low tax regime. It is, I agree, a libertarian argument and one that the centre and left (and I'd include today's Tories in this) instinctively recoil from. You know my politics - villages getting together to save the pub, raise funds for the church steeple, help neighbours flooded out, tidying up the village green, popping in to see that Elsie or Fred are OK are to my mind, a small scale model, of how neighbourhoods should be and could be if we hadn't all been indoctrinated over 60 years with the pervasive idea that "they" the gov't are responsible for these sort of things. As just one example - can you really argue that the introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau checks and the implementation of other, even more onerous checks on all that might, just possibly, come into contact with children have led to any significant decrease of child abuse? That came about when government went for the "big" solution that then grew like Topsy and developed new ramifications, regulations and legislation. It still remains true that most children are safe - and that most child abuse occurs within the family network. It has certainly led to a significant decrease in the number of volunteers putting themselves forward to help and a major added cost, with associated delays to appointment of new staff, to many businesses, schools and hospitals. All of which might be considered a tax on helpfulness. Funding not managing means - a state funded / directed health insurance rather like the system found in France & Germany, both of which seem to manage their health system better than the NHS - while allowing private doctors, clinics and hospitals to operate independently of the government (except for necessary regulation of standards - but not centralised micro management). Similar principles could apply to education. We've had the argument before about small government. Just because there are few obvious examples it does not mean it cannot work. For a slightly more detailed argument you could look here. You might consider Hong Kong as an example of small government, the Canadians - faced with a major budget deficit also opted, more or less, willingly for a smaller government (and lower costs of government) with some success. New Zealand is another country that attempts to adopt the principle - Denmark has some politicians in favour. I'm not, totally, alone in my argument - however much I may be an outlier on the EDF. Edited to give an example of "big" government that hasn't worked.

I heard that Dan Snow (the TV historian) has attempted to set up a small Dunkirk type of operation to rescue some of those stranded in Europe - but that it has foundered on the need for insurance, indemnity forms and other assorted paperwork.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "Big business doesn't ask for smaller government when it "discusses" HQ and relocation plans - its asks, nay demands, hefty hefty incentives (paid for by the taxpayer, unachievable with small government) It is a fallacy that countries can survive on "small" governments" Sean: a. Businesses of all kinds, big or small, would be illogical not to take advantage of, or lobby for gov't cash if it's on offer. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer lower taxes and no government subsidy. That option hasn't been on offer for over 60 years. b. Where is the fallacy in the concept of small government? A small government does not mean no government. A small government could simplify the taxation system to one designed to deliver the required sums for gov't spending but without the current complex tax breaks and tax hikes to encourage / discourage approved / disapproved types of behaviour. A small government might: 1. Simplify law & order legislation 2. Reduce bureaucracy 3. End the target culture 4. Get rid of ID card schemes 5. Minimise the need for national databases 6. Simplify levels of local government. A small government would concern itself with essentials: 1. Health - to the extent that it needs funding but not managing 2. Education - ditto, 3. The economy - recognising that, on the whole, government doesn't drive the economy it merely creates the environment for an economy to thrive or not 4. Foreign affairs 5. Policing, law and order 6. Defence, A small government might let individuals, businesses, organisations and everyone else get on with their life, business with minimal interference. That does not mean leaving everyone to sink or swim according to their resources - but it does mean reducing the vast sums spent on matters far better handled outside of government. A few exanples: 1. The National Curiculum 2. Swathes of employment legislation 3. Regional development agencies 4. Strategic health authorities 5. The Appointments Commission 6. The Department of Trade & Industry (or whatever this month's title is) and so on. c. I think the last 13 (or perhaps more accurately the last ten) years have tested the concept of "big government" to destruction - on the way creating a major structural deficit with almost 25% of government spending being funded by borrowing - something that cannot continue forever.

In the Sunday Times today it has been suggested that the absence of planes over London might help Boris Johnson to make his case for a new London airport in the Thames Estuary - taking most flights out over the sea rather than land and giving many os us the noise free benefits that this current crisis has delivered.

The rest of Hugenot's post is the familiar left wing myth of Britain 1979 - 1997, also re-iterated by jimmy two times and others. Particularly "Why don't Tories just come clean? They're rich, and they don't want to support public services because they go private to stay away from the proles". What Tories do believe in, and have generally always believed in, is balanced spending, smaller government, lower taxes and greater self sufficiency. The government isn't the answer to all ills - in many cases it is the problem.

(NOT Lib Dems)

Hugenot - your "conspiracy theory gene" must be on overtime. I did read the article in the Telegraph (see note), I agree. I am also right of centre by political persuasion and also a proponent of small government. None of which particularly reflect upon the core of my post. My OP was placed as a genuine query - I have carried a knife, usually a penknife, almost all my life. First as a boy scout (sheath knife on a belt), then at sea (clasp knife with working rig) and then as a civilian (Swiss Army knife). It is not Labour Government, per se, that I abhor - but bad, petty and interfering government, and this catch all law is a good example of limited thinking, lack of common sense and the limited value of an across the board law that has little or no effect on criminals but gives police powers to criminalise otherwise solid (stolid in the case of caravanners?) people. NOTE: I also read The Times (daily), the FT (weekly), the Guardian (online) and the Sun or Mirror at the barbers.

But then look what happened. High expectations, low delivery. I'm looking for economic competence and a reduction in obsessive state control and interference. Oh - and an end to ver increasing tax burden.

PR - why wouldn't you ever go private? You give no reason. On the face of it the NHS appear to have let you down or, at least, not served you well. If you can afford private healthcare you take up a private bed, in a private hospital and are treated by privately employed doctors & nurses. THis frees up the publicly funded NHS to treat someone else rather sooner than otherwise might have been the case. A good argument could be made that those with the resources should "go private" to reduce their load on the NHS.

A simple calculation will show you are paying approximately ?1500 per person for the NHS - so ?3,000 a year for a family of four is not too bad. I value private medicine for its speed - recently had severe headaches which could have been a symptom of something very serious. NHS GP - change current hypertension medication and come back in four weeks. Private nueurologist - immediate CT scan and report within 25 minutes. No tumour, no TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack[?]) - a sort of minor stroke. Problem identified to be Cluster Headaches - strangely a seasonal disorder that can be ameliorated by some very strong and targeted painkillers. The private health insurance cost was valued by me for the swift peace of mind it gave me and family.

Pen knives are probably only used or carried by men over the age of 40 these days - those that perhaps spent time as boy scouts, or similar, when younger. A report in yesterday's papers Disabled Caravanner Charged stated that a man had been charged and found guilty for having an "Offensive Weapon" in the glove box of his car. It was a closed Swiss Army knife. He was given a conditional discharge by magistrates so, it could be argued, that they did not see his offence as being serious - but they did find him guilty. A definition of an offensive weapon is: 'Offensive weapon' means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it worth him for such use by him (or some other person). I routinely carry a Swiss Army knife in my briefcase and use it to open envelopes, trim paper, sharpen pencils, cut string, clean finger nails, fasten / unfasten small screws and a myriad of other occasional uses. Can the legal beagles of the EDF advise whether I'm at risk of being charged and, if it were to happen, what my defence might be? I would argue that a Swiss Army knife is a useful tool - it, usually, has two small blades plus any number of other things - tweezers, a tooth pick, a screwdriver, a nail file, scissors etc. It could certainly cause harm, or even death, if used with that intent - but then so could a half brick picked up from the ground, a walking stick or even my own hands or feet.

The skies are blue, the air is warmer, trees are in bud and birds are singing. Time to step outside the pub or restuarant for a seat on the terrace and enjoy al fresco drinking and eating. Except - all the tables are full of bl**dy smokers. I didn't approave of the smoking ban, despite benefiting from the legislation as a life long non smoker who just hated the smell of cigaratte smoke in pubs, clubs, restaurants and on clothes. I never bought the secondary smoke is really really dangerous argument and I don't like over bearing government legislation. It would be even more illogical to ban smoking in the fresh air (tho' I understand this is the direction of travel in the US) but how can I enjoy my pint, glass of wine or bowl of pasta in the fresh air when all around me are smokers? Segregated pub gardens, separate areas for smokers outside? Ideas welcome.

I felt Cameron underperformed. Brown held his own but added nothing to what we already know about him. Clegg gave best performance but was the joker in the pack anyway as he could make promises and suggest ideas that he'd never have to implement. I would not want him as a PM. On a minor mathematica; / economic note - Cameron wants to cancel the NI hike - saying it can be "funded" from savings. Brown wants to hit us with an NI hike criticising Cameron for quote "taking ?6 billion out of the economy". Altho' no one seems to be making the argument I would suggest that an NI hike of ?6 billion is "taking it out of the economy", that is out of individual's pockets and out of businesses for government to spend when, usually, individuals / businesses will spend money more sensibly and efficiently, than government. It's the equivalent of roughly ?100 per person (man, woman & child) in UK. Given that ?6 billion represents less than 1% of government spending - can it be that crucial to government spending plans?

Ladymuck Wrote: What about the pond, should I cover it over? It's packed full of mating newts. Can I swap frogspawn for newts? we have newt free pond.

Yes Yes (later on on record) Probably not - but I'm also interested in how each party will spin their man. A. Labour working hard to downplay expectations of Brown, to play up expectations of Cameron and to sidle up to Clegg in the hope he'll back Brown's attacks on Cameron. B. Tories keen to stress Cameron's relaxed posture beforehand but also his fear of a gaffe - so as to play down expectations of their man. C. Lib Dems just so excited to be on the big stage - and hoping their chap will look good and not be sidelined. PREDICTION - a no score draw unless one of them breaks ranks and breaks one of the rules in making a great point / one liner.

I find the tenor of this thread confusing. Why is it, apparently, OK to avoid tax on cars for a number of posters - yet not OK for other forms of tax avoidance to be considered. I sense that those using "snitch" / "nosy" and other terms would happily "snitch" if they discovered a business was avoiding local business rates, or a parent was using a false address to get into a "good" school, or a banker was taking a bonus in a "tax efficient" fashion. What is it that makes car tax OK to avoid but other rules right to obey and draw attention to lapses?