Marmora Man

What happens in the Scottish Parliament and WElsh ASsembly - all very quiet on those fronts but I can't believe it's any better?

This is a Victorian area - almost by definition our houses will be energy inefficient. Drafts, thinning glass in windows, elderly central heating systems, many chimneys, thin walls. Some actions can be taken to improve matters but a Victorian house will never be as energy efficient as a modern purpose built property with all attendant technology. Beware being told you're well off the mark and ask what is the best that can be achieved in this sort of housing stock.

ell them it?s your policy not to be told what to do by a clothes shop put your first 3 items in the ?free? bag, the rest under your arm and put them in the bag as soon as you leave the counter. Almost exactly what I said as I stuffed items into my jacket and asked to see the management - who could not come up with a decent rationale for the policy. My rant kept them busy for 10 minutes - and no-one in the queue was bothered as they seemed to support my position. I can see the rationale but don't agree with it - it's a busy shop, mostly commuters on the way home. Most can't be arsed to argue / complain about an extra 5p. M&S therefore use less of the cheapo plastic bags, thus saving money, plus they get an "eco" boost by giving the money made from the 5p bag sales to charity.

Not bad - set off in rain, rain delayed start by 1 hour then for the short morning session we saw three wickets fall, long and slow afternoon session then after tea all action again. Some good catches - some good banter with KP fielding at extra cover and a decent picnic. Plus, of course, England won. The opposition wasn't strong but the England performance was a good team effort, only Bresnan not getting a wicket but he took a good catch in gully / 4th slip area. Cook's catch of Nash off Broad was very good - a skier that was difficult to place.

Being told in M&S London Bridge that it's "company policy" that their free bags may only hold 3 items and I must pay 5p per bag for extra bags. It's meant to be a quick stop shop for commuters. When I asked where this policy was promulgated was shown a small notice well above eye level on a pillar and 7ft off the ground

Hell, I've just packed the picnic rucsac, which due to weather majors on flasks of coffee, whisky and rugs. I expect to see some cricket but am not sure I'll see any English batting unless the W. Indies really get their act together.

Joanna Lumley is an intelligent and principled woman. Her articles in The Times some years back and other writings since prove she is far more than an easily led "luvvie". Her father was a Major in a WWII Gurkha Regiment - his life was saved by a Gurkha soldier - posh or not that's a pretty good reason for supporting that particular regiment. The campaign on behalf of the Gurkha's has been well managed and led intelligently. To see J Lumley, yesterday, dictating policy on live TV to a glumly nodding Phil Woolas was to see a quick witted, knowledgeable and well briefed campaign leader run rings around an inept political placeman.

A rather scary, totally unsubstantiated and fact free, article from AlterNet.org alternet.org If you have even a passing interest in the environment then you should research, learn the facts - then present a cogent argument and propose solutions.

Heard today on Radio 4 a new verb: Snark. Snarking: to make derogatory comments about something or someone (normally a celebrity), in a blog. Do you "Snark" - does the EDF "Snark". Should we? Who is the worst "Snarker"?

Conversely we always find we're subject to skip divers - rummaging thru' our rubbish for something to recycle. Overall in our neck of the woods the incoming / outgoing items just about balance. Tho' I can't think of anyone wanting an old blue toilet bowl!

I liked S'pore when I was there but I was a young naval officer celebrating my 21st birthday in Boogie Street - playing tic tac toe with youngster for a singaporean $, drinking Tiger beer, eating from roadside stalls and being entertained by some very friendly QUANTAS airhostesses and avoiding the ladyboys. I thought it was fantastic - but I'm sure its now sanitised and tidy state would be less exotic.

To reinforce ????'s point - the UK lottery odds are about 1 in 14 million. The Euro Lottery the odds are, I believe, worse. 1/14,000,000 = 0.000000007% probability of winning - which is, for all working purposes very very close to ZERO. Those holding no ticket at all have only marginally less chance of winning than someone holding a ticket with one set of numbers.

Saw this quote in Borough Market today. "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". How about that for today's "Thought for the Day"?

Bob Dylan is reputed to draw inspiration from anywhere and everywhere. When I was young my father would recite the poems of Robert Service to me. One in particular - "The Shooting of Dan McGrew" has always stuck in my mind. Listening to some old Dylan tracks recently I felt a resonance between that poem and Dylan's "Lilly, Rosemary and the Jack of Spades" LILY, ROSEMARY AND THE JACK OF HEARTS The festival was over, the boys were all plannin? for a fall, The cabaret was quiet except for the drillin? in the wall. The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin? wheel shut down, Anyone with any sense had already left town. He was standin? in the doorway lookin? like the Jack of Hearts. "The Shooting of Dan McGrew" A bunch of the boys were whooping it up In the Malamute saloon; The kid that handles the music-box Was hitting a jag-time tune; Back of the bar, in a solo game, Sat Dangerous Dan McGrew, And watching his luck was his light-o'-love, The lady that's known as Lou. For the whole Service Poem see Shooting of Dan McGrew Does anyone else see a particular resonance between a Dylan track and other poetry, books, films and events?

Sure it is - it's called charity - but even that yields a profit. Your assumption is that all profit is monetary. Your satisfaction (smug self satisfaction?) in exercising your choice and not making a monetary profit is a benefit (profit) to you in that it makes you feel better. You're trying to read between my lines. I was not condemning anyone - all I said was that when tickets go on sale everyone has an equal chance to queue and buy. If there's a massive oversubscription that's not discrimination against the lowly paid -it's discrimination against everyone who wants to attend. People value things differently. I recently paid to watch an Arsenal match - in essence I paid a premium as the holder of the season tickets that I and my sons used could have let me have them for free - after all he couldn't use them as he was abroad. I paid, not to see the match but to see the pleasure on my sons faces at the treat of attending a premier league match of their favourite club. How do you value a great day out with family - to me the cash I parted with was worth it. In a different situation I might have decided not to spend that cash on that particular treat but paid off part of my mortgage, or bought a picture for the wall - my freedom of choice. Looking around at the Emirates Stadium I could see many season ticket holders - they had paid upwards of a ?1,000 a year (I think) for their season ticket. I would never pay that as I don't value premier league football more than ?1,000. Others, maybe even lowly earners, do and willingly forego other pleasures to pay for their particular "thing". Every purchase you make is a decision - foregoing one thing in order to afford another. I don't understand your attitude toward buying and selling - you seem to imply it is morally wrong. It is not, but everyone has freedom of choice - to buy, to not buy, to give something away for free or to sell on at a monetary profit. Charity is great - I support and applaud it, but the whole world cannot run solely on charitable giving from one to another

Jeremy, As I have said to ???? - everyone has a choice. I am not advocating that everyone must value and trade everything they hold dear. Merely that selling, anything, for a profit is not necessarily a "bad thing". There are many things I hold dear and would never sell at all, let alone for a profit - but to ascribe a similar uniqueness to a concert ticket is beyond my comprehension.

Sean, my response: 1) The price is no reflection of quality. Selling a ?30 ticket for ?50 is scalping and gives no extra benefit. It provides an extra value to the person prepared to pay for it. They don't have a ticket - they want one, they are prepared to pay a premium to get one. They are not buying something valued at ?30 - the ticket itself has no intrinsic value. They are paying for an access that otherwise they cannot have. 2) Being of limited quantity and tied to a specific date makes it unique. Uniqueness has always been a selling point - hence love of art and high prices paid for an Old Master etc 3) The ticket price is democratic - it is what it is. Even someone on a lowly income can look forward to an event if they know the price and save for it - if people with more cash just keep inflating the price it excludes those on a lower income for no reason other than to line their own pockets - and to repeat a point - for no effort whatsoever. But the "lowly paid" have an equal opportunity to buy the ticket in the first place. If they are such great fans they will queue for the ticket - it's not as if those selling tickets on at a premium "won" them in a lottery, they queued for them as everyone else did. I still think your arguments are emotional not rational. However, I would support a campaign to encourage all venues (of whatever ilk) to retain a certain % of tickets for sale on the day of the event only and available only at the venue. This works brilliantly at the National Theatre and I have used it often to get tickets (at face value!) for otherwise sold out productions. I suggested to the ECCB that all Test Matches should do the same and if the O2 was to follow suit it might satisfy your emotional position and my rationalist position. "True" fans can get face value tickets if they are prepared to get up early and queue - others can pay to avoid such a queue by paying a premium to a tout.

A random selection of this weeks Golden Oldies for me - numvers do not imply ranking: 1. Billericay Dickie - Ian Drury 2. Albatross - Fleetwood Mac 3. BUrlesque - Family 4. The GReat Gig inthe Sky - Pink Floyd 5. Sunny Aftgernoon - The KInks 6. Knockin' on Heaven's Door - Eric Clapton 7. Cocaine - Eric Clapton 8. Money for Nothing - Dire Straits 9. The Partisan - Leonard Cohen 10. Matty Groves - Fairport Convention It will be a different list next week / next day / next month

???? - you're implying that you have no choice. Everyone is an individual - you can do what you want. My argument isn't that anyone must sell at a profit - only that there's nothing intrinsically wrong in doing so and that there are no "special cases" that preclude such an action.

No idea - haven't put my mind to it. However, there was a suggestion of legislation to make ticket touting illegal, I wouldn't want such legislation to also catch the EDFer selling a one off spare ticket to a football match, cricket match or concert - whether for profit or at face value.

Sean, Sean, what with this thread, and others, today you seem to be more "shouty" than usual? I re-iterate tickets, for anything, are just another commodity. I was presenting the absolutist (or utilitarian) argument for information - not as a defence. Ticket touting is wrong because that is a function of cornering the market and creating a monopoly. However, to claim that music / concert tickets have some innate moral value that should prevent them from being traded is clearly nonsensical. The concert or event is a commercial event in the first place. So is the sale of paintings, of food in restaurants, a bus ride, a pair of boots - all commodities. When all you are left with is name calling it presumes your argument is poor.

indiepamda - I've already stated my opposition to wholesale buyers of tickets and agree entirely that they are a blight on the market. I have never done that - and wouldn't want to, tickets I have sold have been "redundant" thru' changed plans, absence of friends etc. However, Sean seems to believe tickets are a very special case and should never be sold on at a profit - which is illogical. There is an absolutist argument which would allow touting. It would go something like this: Tickets are sold for a popular event. Not everyone can take time out to queue / phone / apply online to obtain the tickets they want - there is a cost to them of taking the time off to do this which they are not prepared to "pay". Touts are prepared to queue / phone / apply online. Touts sell on the tickets with a premium added for the time they have spent queuing / phoning / applying on line. It's a rational argument - except that if they corner the market the touts actually create the shortage of tickets that allows them to charge the hefty premium. This is not allowed in more general markets and shouldn't be allowed in any other market. However, a blanket ban on "one off" / "non tout" selling on of tickets by individuals would be illogical. It annoys me when Lords, Wimbledon and other top venues claim that they "own" the ticket and forbid it sale to anyone else.

I would never dictate where people should, or should not, sell items. I'm just saying that there's nothing intrinsically wrong in selling "stuff" for a profit - whatever it is. Of course people can be nice - but a ticket is just an item - buy gold today and sell it tomorrow at a profit - you've done nothing but hold it. Put money into an ISA and take the profit (perhaps) in 5 years time - you've done nothing but hold the money. Why are tickets so special? I've sold Leonard Cohen tickets at face value and Ashes tickets at better than twice face value. In both cases I received what was a market value - unrelated to the price on the ticket. I offered something - someone else chose to buy it - all parties were satisfied. In both cases I sat next to the person / people I sold the tickets to. No-one complained about the pricing.

I have no problem with dealing in tickets. I have bought and sold redundant tickets at face value - I have also sold on tickets that I could no longer use at a profit, it all depended on what the purchaser was prepared to pay. What is the difference between selling a car, gold or a picture at a higher price than originally purchased for and selling a ticket to an event? I object to touts buying up swathes of tickets - thus denying them to others who are prepared to queue and buy at the right time / price as well as creating a market for scarce tickets. That's monopolistic practice. BUT the world is a market place: So if I have something I can't use - and you want it, then we haggle and exchange money for goods - if it's profitable for me and you're happy with the price where's the damage?

lard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There were the ?500 Chelsea tickets the other week > too. Don't think they sold tho'