Loz

Time to start the traditional Aussie/Kiwi slanging match...

Too blonde?

11pm is an acceptable time to *start* a party. Indoors, of course. Outdoors after that time is a bit out of order.

You wait until you need them, then I bet you'll have a different opinion.

Moos. St Delia of Christmas is your angel. ?8.27 is not much to pay for sage* advice. *All herb-related puns intended.

Like he cares. He's got what he wants and is set up for life. The LibDems will replace him before the next election. He'll move on to the City or Europe.

That's not true. There is (surprisingly) a difference between 'failed MOT' and 'unroadworthy'. For instance, if a rear seat belt is faulty or your exhaust emissions are high then you will fail an MOT. The car is perfectly safe to drive, though (without anyone in the back seat!). However, there are some parts of the test that may signal unworthiness - tyres, for instance. Your car can be considered unroadworthy at any time, even with a valid MOT. Your old MOT is valid until its expiry date, BUT if you have an accident and something you failed the MOT on is seen as a contributory cause then you can expect your insurance company to wash their hands of you. (And CS - it's SORN, not SCORN). Having said all that, I'd sell it. The best you will do it get the money back you spent repairing it.

This is now reminding me of the funeral scene in the IT Crowd...

Brilliant!

As I have the marvellous ability to use bus stops that predominantly don't have Countdown boards, I think this is a massive step forwards.

Isn't the question unclear? There are actually two questions: - How do you measure if *you* are a successful person? - How do you measure if someone else is a successful person? The first is simple and boils down to: "am I happy"? The second is much more difficult.

This bloke in the car sounds like he is fighting racism with... um... racism? What an idiot.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact if property prices come down then > nobody gets taxed by this mechanism (certainly not > the honest pensioners, just the super-rich) and we > are presumably all happy...? At that point your tax would bring in nothing and so we would have to revert to normal taxation methods. Your tax would have achieved nothing except make a lot of people, who had some money, poor. And yet you consistently deny this is an Envy Tax? All a Asset Tax will do is kill the price of just about any asset in the UK. You make think this is some type of laudable objective, but in reality it would cause the biggest recession you could imagine. And in any recession, it is not the rich that suffer, it is the poor. It's just muddled, left-wing thinking - casting off the stated objective ('a fairer tax system') in order to achieve some social agenda that actually benefits no one ('make the super rich suffer').

NOAM!! "Beer, Noam?" "Have I gotten that predictable? Good."

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't believe I have taken it out of context - I > find your "naughty children" comparison offensive. I think you are just really, really trying to be offended. > Yes, I would deprive the EDL of their "right" to march through Tower Hamlets not because I don't > believe in human right.. If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -Noam Chomsky

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Who are you and what have you done with > sarcastic > > *Bob*? > > Loz, are you sitting comfortably? I am now. :-$

I dunno, H. He/she has picked up pretty quickly that I'm rather a nice person. B)

Who are you and what have you done with sarcastic *Bob*?

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - I have been on many, many marches backing many, many causes including the anti-Criminal > Justice Bill in the 90s that aimed to reduce human rights and only one of which was a union march > (the march for alternative earlier this year). So why are you so keen to deprive someone you disagree politically with those same rights? Do you only want rights for people you have selected? People who meet your criteria? Human rights must be universal. Or, in the words of CP Scott, long time editor of the Guardian, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred. [...] The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard." > I just find it disgusting you compare the EDL to "small children being naughty." If you are unaware > of exactly the sort of people you think are "being naughty" you should read this > http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1341/the-guns-of-the-edl I think your are taking my comment well out of context - I was making the comparison on the level of attention seeking. Read it again. As regards your website, I am not at all surprised that the EDL have more than their fair share of nutters. But do you think that that website is exactly the sort of publicity the EDL actually rather appreciates? It is websites like that that keep the EDL in the news, which is exactly where they want to be. Heck, they've even got the Home Secretary name checking them. If I was their publicity officer, I'd be asking for a pay rise.

Then I hope you would not be too shocked when the same legislation is used to ban your next union march. Or whatever cause you back. Because history tells us that is what will happen. Also, chippy - I really hope you do not claim to be a supporter of human rights and free speech.

I've just read the Wiki pages on the Schenk case. Interestingly, the precedent was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). Otherwise, I could see the precedent being used against the anti-Vietnam protests on the same grounds. The new scope is a better approach. You cannot say that an EDL march would necessarily "be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action", however should evidence present itself (like the BBM messages before the recent London riots) then that leaves the authorities scope to act.

But I can make the same argument of "designed to provoke and incite and can cause danger" to the student fees demos, the G20 demos, the anti-nazi league, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra demonstration last night... hell, even both sides of the pro and anti fox hunting demos. I would argue that any demonstration that doesn't set out to provoke isn't going to be very effective and banning due the potential of incitement is very dangerous territory. There are better ways of tackling things than banning them. Banning induces a sense of martyrdom. They are like a small child being naughty to get attention. All banning does is give them the newspaper headlines and news airtime they crave. Ignoring them is a usually the most effective.

I hope this is a lesson to the sort of people that tend to say "Of course I believe in free speech/human rights, but we can't be having *them* marching about". 'Cause it's just bitten you on the backside. Like or not, the EDL and the BNP are part and parcel of a democracy. I don't like them, but in true Voltaire fashion I fully believe in the right for people to form themselves in a group of political arsewipes if they so wish. It's not as if their arguments are hard to debate.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has this beaten the fois gras thread yet btw? Dunno, but I get the feeling New Nexus is a vegan.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: Agreed you could go after all capital gains if you like inc the folk in Cambridge. I'm not > saying the system is 100% fair as this is unattainable but perhaps fairer than taxing the > arse out of the current generation who have no chance? I'd say go after all of: hard work, good > luck and smart purchasing, rather than just workers as at present. In any case, perhaps the > relative value of sunny Cambridge would cause a London exodus and an end to crazy London prices. Hang on - you've diverted a little here. There is a huge difference between the Lib Dems' mansion tax (which is directly taxing an asset on it's full value, whether iot has gained in value or not) and a capital gains tax (which is taxed upon sale of the asset and only upon it's capital gain). I think the former is very problematic. I have no problem with the latter. Capital gains tax is already in existence, though it is not levied upon primary residences (give or take a bit of a loophole around the two year rule).