Loz

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not about changing laws, it's about whether a business will continue to receive the support of > the wider community or not, based on their ethical/moral position. The 'wider community'? Or the baying mob? We don't know what the wider community think, we can only hear the loudest voices. Some may agree with your position, some may agree with mine, but the only way we will truly know is if Oldham sign Evans and survive as a club. The wider community will have then spoken, one way or the other.

Actually I think SF's argument is exactly the problem at hand, not the solution. I'm sorry, but I am a liberal and so I cannot abide making special rules retrospectively for people just because the baying mob demands it. If we want to learn from this and put laws/codes/whatever in place for the future, then fine (in fact that is exactly what we should be doing), but responding to the chanting of the mob can never be considered justice, no matter how blindly well intentioned.

but hang on, in your previous post you said... So isn't what you are proposing EXACTLY one rule for people who may earn a lot of money, another for the average person?

I suspect you've not actually read the petition, PT! What you call 'rent caps' is actually rent controls. What the petition wants is rent caps.

right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tories don't want social housing at all! Thatchers government privatised the council > properties under the guise of right to buy, as a way of ending recession at that time , empowering > the new owners into the world of credit and debt! Well thank goodness 13 years of Labour put an end to that. Oh, hang on...

indiepanda Wrote: > and one which puts him in the position of having young kids looking up to him Frankly, if kids are 'looking up' to that bunch of lying, cheating, unsportsmanlike, violent bunch of half-wits that comprise most of the league footballers these days, chucking one more into the mix isn't really going to muddy the pond.

That's always confused me - what if both parties wake up in the morning, don't remember anything but it seems certain sex has taken place. Both complain to the police. Who gets charged?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rent control isn't pie in sky dreaming. Depending on how it's implemented it works across many major > cities Rent control, yes. Rent caps, as per this petition, no. But it can still be no solution - rents in rent controlled Berlin is currently rising at three times the rate of uncontrolled London.

Doesn't make economic sense, as you are fighting basic supply and demand. The whole issue is that more people want to live in London than currently there are houses. So, if you impose a rent cap: 1) Rental properties will disappear to almost nothing at that rate, as it would be economically infeasible. This would create a black market where backhanders and on-the-sly payments would decide who got the property. Also, anyone on benefits would find themselves the first off the list of suitable tenants. 2) Alternatively, you could impose German-style rent controls, but this still allows the initial rent of a tenancy to be at market rate. Even Shelter see that (1) is dangerous, and so support this, with the added tenant rights. But this would also reduce the number of rental properties, expect that initial rate to be a lot higher. 3) It would temporarily bring down house prices as BTL properties were put onto the market, but that would be short-term and would probably only bring house prices down to about 2000 prices at best. The supply/demand thing would kick in again and house prices would bounce. I don't see why people get so worked up about rent caps - they are a bad solution to the problem. You can't dump the responsibility for social housing onto the private sector and then complain when the private sector reacts to the additional demand in the only way it knows how. And if you try and interfere with it, you will only end up creating bigger problems than you have now. Demand more social housing provided by government. It's the only sensible and, indeed, workable solution.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She might when it becomes clear he'll never be on a footballer's salary again ;-) Her father is absolutely loaded and is the money behind Evans' legal team. In fact, he's told Oldham he will personally cover any loss of sponsors they might suffer if the sign Evans.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought that was basically what I said. I'm confused at your position, then. Do you think he should be able to play football again or not?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I probably haven't read enough so maybe someone can answer this question. If the girl was so > intoxicated that she couldn't have consented to having sex with him how on what grounds did the > other guy get off? Because it's not actually whether person A gives consent, but whether person B has reasonable belief consent was given. As she arrived at the hotel with McDonald the jury believed there was reasonable grounds for him to believe consent was there (plus apparently she was an 'active participant'). Whereas for Evans, because he arrived later they did not believe he had similar grounds.

1) He still has appeals ongoing. 'Showing remorse' may be seen as accepting guilt, so I can see why he hasn't. 2) I agree that he should have taken a public role to reel his 'supporters' in. What that girl has gone through is completely and utterly unacceptable. I understand the police have arrested quite a few of the scum. The Guardian, after a slew of their standard knee-jerk articles, actually produced a rather well-thought out one yesterday. Essentially it comes down to "if the law is wrong, lets fix that'. Making special rules/punishment for high-profile is basically wrong. Actually, there are clear rules in place here already - it's called the DBS system. Should you want to return to work as teacher/doctor/social worker, you would be prevented by law. There is no current law preventing you becoming an electrician or a footballer. So if you don't like it, get the law changed. But trying to make special, retroactive rules for one person isn't right, IMHO.

Bus is mainly my transport of choice at the moment. They are packed at peak times, sure, but they're certainly not empty outside those hours.

But he's the most experienced person to contact if you're being threatened with the sack.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When you say EVERYONE you mean there are now a few > people talking about it, just as there was on > those other threads So there's now a clique clique? Or is that a meta-cligue?

It's rather inconsistent, too. Under 'Science & Technology' it rates a country by the number of Nobel Laureates ever, yet only counts the number of science publications for one year. I suspect most of the other indexes suffer the same inconsistency.

The 'new' on the posts list is clickable. Blue means you have previously clicked on it for that thread.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure what "world order" means, but Germany at #1 raised a silent chuckle. Especially as 2014 was recognised as centenary of the start of 100 years of trying.

It's available on US Netflix if you want a rewatch. Nige was Pauline Quirk's son. Don't think there was anything else.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Clique are a small group of regular posters using Asides, In-Jokes and Masonic Style > Handshakes that are meaningless to most other EDF users. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel rather crushed and devalued by that.

This is utterly ridiculous! Under 'Science & Technology' they have the US at number 26 and that technical powerhouse, Austria, at number 2. And who knew Belgium is number 1 in the world for their contribution to Culture? Plastic Bertrand's influence shouldn't be underestimated, I suppose.

When she's asleep, stick it in the microwave for a few seconds. That should see off the electronics.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The footbridge at Clapham Junction Station You want to try using the Winstanley Road (rear) exit of CJ one evening. That is scary.

Having had to go there for a Christmas party, the area around Streatham Common station had the spidey senses on full alert for some reason.