Marmora Man

I made my position pretty clear I thought - but for the record I haven't experienced "kettling" but I have experienced (in an exercise / practice situation only) baton charges and "selective abduction" of riot leaders. Believe me - kettling must be better. The latter (even in practice) was violent and frightening. Kettling, by contrast, is less violent relying upon the gradual crush of bodies to channel people in a specific direction.

MP - well they publicised their opposition!

Why? Many people claim to represent EDF views. I'd be interested to understand what the demographic comprises. I'm not seeking to know your own age / gender / newspaper habits but to know the composite picture is helpful.

I'm in two minds about this. I support, wholeheartedly, the right to protest and deplore the restrictions this government has placed upon that right. Particularly the restriction on ad hoc protests in the vicinity of Whitehall. Equally, I see a strange ethic arising from some protests where there is a perceived need to provoke a reaction in order to claim the moral high ground. Peaceful protest should involve publicising the aim and objective of the protest on the street. It should not involve damage to individuals or property or create any, substantial, disruption to the business of the city / town / area where the protest is being held. From memory the Countryside Alliance march against the Hunting Legislation (which I took part in) and the Anti Iraq war (which I supported but did not march for) achieved their aim without violence to people, property or undue disruption. The police monitoring those marches were amiable and did not resort to any strong arm tactics. The recent G20 protest and previous similar events have been preceded by rhetoric by certain elements of the protest designed to inflame both protesters and police into more extreme acts of protest / response. Perhaps protests against particular policies are inherently more peaceful than protests against political systems. It should be the number of attendees at any protest march that gives strength to the protest NOT actions and, on that point, the G20 protest was relatively small in numbers - leading perhaps to the need by key organisers to encourage the violent rhetoric. Kettling does seem to be a better way of controlling a crowd than baton charges and to describe them s "police assaults" is a foolish overstatement that does nothing to make the case for protest. On balance I won't be attending or supporting this particular protest - partly because I find the rhetoric of the The Stop the War Coalition, the British Mulsim Initiative, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other similar lobby groups distasteful and tending toward the extreme - also partly because I do not consider they (Chick) have made a sufficient case for protest. As a further comment I would add that the Ian Tomlinson death is tragic. It should not have happened, the facts should have been made clear sooner and I do not condone it. I see it as evidence that, as in all organisations, there is a minority of foolish and violent idiots in the police forces of UK. However, it is being investigated and it has been deplored by all those in authority. For Chick to cite it as evidence to support the thesis that all police are confrontational, provocative and dangerous is itself provocative.

Probably. While I'd agree with ???? that it's probably bloated, inefficient and too "public sector" at ?140 / year it represents the best payback for a taxation ? across the spectrum. The radio services are worth the price alone.

Have you ever conducted any form of user survey? Age / gender / occupation / income bracket / education / postcode (SE22 / SE15 / elsewhere)/ newspapers read / profession and / or employment / membership of political parties / sports played / own - rented home / + + + etc etc It would be interesting if sufficient were to complete the survey - would presumably, if suitably anonymised, be of interest of potential advertisers and would indicate how "mainstream" or otherwise the opinions of the forum majority are.

Fewer MPs with better support to handle constituency matters will, I believe, attract a higher calibre of representative who would be able to achieve more and crucially should make for better debate. Far too many of the current house are simply drones and lobby fodder.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I being thick? Point 2. seems to contradict > point 1. No - fewer MP's means fewer constituencies, but I want the constituencies that are represented to be more meaningful. Why not just Southwark rather than having H Harman & T JOwell representing us.

DC - have replied on a new thread Restructuring Houses of Parliament

To follow comments made by David Carnell, Hugenot and Brendan on the Jacqui Smith thread Jaqui Smith thread - political restructuring DC - I agree your points. There is a difficult balance to be struck. This is worth a wider debate - hence new thread - on how Parliament (both houses) could be restructured to improve calibre of occupants, quality of their work (scrutiny of legislation / representation of constituents / representation of ills to be righted ect). As a starter for 10 propose: 1. Reduce the number of MPs 2. Make constituencies more "recognisable" as a community rather than a manipulated sector. (A particularly poor example is South Hertfordshire (I think that's it's tile) - over 20 miles long it is, in parts, just 1 milw wide and can hardly be a genuine community. 3. Change the salary structure so that work is rewarded - so a committee chairman /member receives additional pay.

Rather like DC, and despite what I said in response to him, I support the party - I believe in the wider aims of traditional conservatism. Coming from a libertarian / humanist background I personally seek a smaller, less intrusive, government with far greater freedom of action / thought and responsibility held by individuals. The Conservatives aren't there yet - but they're the closest to this, possibly impossible, ambition.

The views from Marmora Road (north side) are even better - tho' perhaps I'm prejudiced.

THere is however, a problem with career politicians. Paying politicians more as DC suggested will not, automatically, ensure a higher calibre of politician. There's a long waiting list of wannabe politicians at the current rates of pay. I've suggested before that there should be a minimum experience requirement for MPs - getting elected at the age of 21 with a background of school life and university politics is not good for the necessary breadth of knowledge and experience the House should have available. Similarly there should be a maximum term to an MP's career unless he / she becomes a minister / shadow minister. To be able to spend 25 years as a foot soldier on the back benches voting with the whips again reduces the variety and breadth of experience. I have no problem with paying Ministers more appropriately - nor with providing them, and general MPs, proper recovery of expenses incurred - provided the scope of such expenses is similar to those in other walks of life - ie genuine "out of pocket" costs incurred in the interests of the role. Not for bath plugs, TVs, cushions etc.

David C - how can you separate party & government. One makes the other.

I will continue to be a lone voice - and question the thesis. Particularly the Stern report - exactly what were his scientific qualifications to pontificate?

I've covered my scepticism before but for the record and in brief: I?m a climate change sceptic (and I note the relatively recent change from ?Global Warming? to ?Climate Change? necessary since the warming element hasn?t been too obvious over last few years) because there is a lack of properly researched hard evidence of abnormal changes. Much of the observed climate change is well within normal historical variations for temperature / climate across the world. A significant proportion of the evidence offered is suspect and / or tampered. Too many Climate Change proponents are not qualified in the fields of meteorology, glaciology, oceanography or other related subjects. There are too many loose statements that don?t hold up to proper, ?Popperian? scientific analysis. The tendency to scream too loudly as, for example, calling the planned Kingsnorth Coal fired power station a ?killing machine? is detrimental to rational debate. The hypothesis of global warming / climate change has some strengths and should be tested. It should be possible to construct experiments and tests that will test the hypothesis and thus demonstrate the case. I haven?t yet seen a clear exposition of the hypothesis and necessary associated experiments or tests. I believe that real science and scientific research will ensure the survival of mankind and the planet; not some well meaning gesture politics allied with anti globalization and anti capitalism fashionable protests that seems to characterise so much of the Climate Change debate.

I heard the same interview and didn't catch the misogynistic overtones you did. I heard a politician being grilled over claiming that her main home was a flat she shared with her sister - while the property she shared with her husband and children was designated a "second home" for the purposes of claiming expenses. So the house where her Christmas cards are sent to, where she keeps her photo albums, where her children bring their friends to play is subsidised by us taxpayers to the extent of buying faux suede cushions, plasma TVs, a bar b q, bath plugs and so on. Even if it were a genuine second home, which as John Humphrey's pointed out common senses says it is not, the idea that the taxpayer should fund such accessories is excessive. In a more commercial world many employees are accommodated away from their family home. In my experience the employer usually picks up the costs of accommodation & subsistence - not refurbishing the designated accommodation in (??) style nor for such fripperies as a bar b q. Any hounding of Jaqui Smith on this subject is proper and correct - Alistair Darling, Geoff Hoon, Gordon Brown and other ministers are hardly setting the right example and have also been hounded by the press.

Suggesting I was comparing is disingenuous. I was making the point that extrapolating from a known position without taking into account current and future change has been wrong in the past. HAL9000 doesn't seem to believe that science and technology could resolve the quoted problems - I believe they can. I am a climate change sceptic - but I know that there's a lot a fine and very clever research and development going on that will reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Thus I do not, personally, lie awake panicking about the end of the world and Peak Oil issues. Hydrogen fuel cells are but one of many avenues being explored - the recent breakthrough in battery technology making electric powered cars far more realistic is encouraging, particularly when backed by nuclear fusion power stations - which could also make the hydrogen at a low cost (tho' I'm not convinced about DC's cost argument - I spent much time in vessels that produced hydrogen 24/7 through electrolysis - we actually wanted the oxygen and our problem was disposing of the hydrogen overboard quietly). I am sure human ingenuity and perseverance will resolve the issues - that doesn't mean I'm sitting back and abrogating responsibility - I support the research efforts and have always been an enthusiast for both pure and applied scientific research. Surely only luddites would refuse to applaud new technology.

I don't see Peak Oil and Climate Change as threats to our very existence that will put us back into HAL9000's stone age (tho' I doubt many of the premises of the latter), but more as part of a changing environment in which we (the human race) are existing and to which we respond / adapt and evolve. Two centuries ago the Royal Navy was worried that there were not enough oak trees to build future warships - 150 years ago the Victorians were predicting a gridlock in London of horse drawn vehicles and horse dung. Advancing technology did away with the problems. Peak Oil represents a similar situation - predicating disaster based on continuing current trends without proper consideration of emerging and current technology that is already responding to the long predicted exhaustion of oil and other resources.

Room 101 in the basement of the EDT?

When the world wide web cam into being I was an MBA student and found it useful, but complicated. Then national and international e-mails came into being and, altho' at first I used the system because it was there, now find I cannot manage without it. The WWW has matured and every organisation has a website, booking holidays, looking for a job, searching for a home, finding a partner can all be done via the web - provided you know exactly what you want Today I wanted to check out train times and costs but, in the end, the options I wanted to explore were to complex for the website - I need to talk to a human being that understands the rail system in South London. Organisations that take their customers seriously and want to offer a great service will, I believe, soon be investing in real human beings to talk to customers rather than automated, multi choice, telephone systems or databased websites. Just think - a single telephone call and you're through to an expert. Any views?

I would second Hugenot's palatable solution in it's entirety.

His explanation makes a lot of sense to a layman - the YouTube video's are strong on assertion - short on facts / exposition.

Peak Oil will not be a problem - there are many alternative energy supplies and science will solve that issue. Fusion energy is a real possibility within the next 25 years - which would "eat" the existing nuclear fission by products and produce carbon neutral energy from all kinds of inputs. Climate Change is still, I believe, an overhyped and overheated (no pun intended) thesis. I am old enough to remember having to worry about the new "Ice Age" that was considered to be the big environmental issue in the late 60's / early 70's. That turned out to be untrue as well. Interesting article in today's S Times - flora is growing bigger and faster due to enhanced availability of CO2, and is therefore absorbing more CO2 - illustrating a bio feedback loop that will have a stabilising impact.

Clazza Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tied in my lifeguard training with swimming > coaching so paid well through Uni. My fav. > lifeguarding stint was a summer on the beach in > San Diego. Ah those were the days. Was good money > as a student. Aah - San Diego. Wind surfing off the beach, skiing in the mountains. The perfect climate ~ 75F all year round. I remember it well, particularly beach parties on Coronado Island and drinking Dry Martini's watching the sun set over the Pacific from the terrace of the Coronado Hotel (was that it's name? - the one that featured in the Marilyn Monroe / Jack lemon film "Some LIke it Hot"))