Loz

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and also noticed that since they have been doing works lovely old stones of angels have had > heads and wings knocked off! Oh, good grief - it's the crap 'Angel of Southwark' gambit all over again.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's been the warmest Winter since 1659 when records began... ... Could be. Not confirmed yet.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > "Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got > > punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut > > lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being > > punitive and that should not go to the person complaining. > > The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that." > > Sorry, you're still talking out of your @rse. No one make a claim against someone who obviously > can't pay - nothing to do with 'the system'. I have no idea how the ?100k figure was arrived at, > but it wasn't by a court i.e. 'the system', and it's likely to have been (at least) a generous > offer because Clarkson doesn't want the publicity. You are obviously struggling with the concept here. If two people get punched/abused, why is one worth ?100k and the other nothing. That IS the system. > "Damages should cover actual monetary loss" - really? What if I published a new story on the > front page of The Times saying that you were a paedophile? Or stood outside your house every > night playing Guns n Roses with my amp turned up to 11? Or took a shit on your doorstep just > before you left the house for work every morning? > Edited to add - in the latter case would you feel properly compensated by the cost of a tin of shoe > polish? If I have suffered no loss, then yes, no compensation. Clean up bills, of course, for my doorstep should be paid. And deodorant. Lots of deodorant. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be forced to have to stump up a lot of money or be otherwise punished - just that I shouldn't benefit from it. Why should I get lots of money from you, but my neighbour who also got his doorstep sullied daily by someone with less money get nothing? If you house gets burgled, do you get compensation from the burglar if they are caught? Or do they get suitably punished (well, hopefully...).

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are going to start a post with "This is the problem with the legal system" it might be a good > idea if you had some vague clue about how it works. Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being punitive and that should not go to the person complaining. The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The guy also lost his job as a result of this Did he?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harsh but fair. Especially for a @#$%& like him. Crikey - he got off lightly with Clarkson just punching him, then.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not in mine. You hit someone (not too badly), swear at them, abuse their nationality and they > end up with ?100k. Perhaps Clarkson should be paying it all and not the taxpayers, but apart > from that what punishment would fit the crime? This is the problem with the legal system. Get hit by Fred Nobody? Suck it up. Get hit by someone famous? Quids in. I think stuff like this should be separated into actual damages and punitive damages (including damages for stuff like 'hurt feelings'). Actual damages go to the victim and punitive to the state (and to cover legal costs). Both sides get what they deserve, in both senses of the phrase.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I'd cut his balls off, shove 'em in his mouth and sow it up. That's a bit harsh for just being unable to rustle up a steak dinner.

It's worth reading this article, summing up Norway's relationship with the EU, which may (or may not) be similar to what a post-Brexit UK may experience. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even Jezzer can see common sense. Or maybe his lawyers! Except it had 'legally obliged apology' written all over it.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then, in the privacy of the booth, they will vote > to exit. And blame everyone else for it if it goes tits-up later. I feel it might be the other way - when it comes to the crunch, they will vote for the status quo. [insert 'Living on an Island' joke here]

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there is Brexit, what happens to the million > Poles? > > And the others? > > And the Welsh? ... and the hundreds of thousands of retired British ex-builders/plumbers/white van drivers holed up in the south of Spain. I mean, do we really want them back?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the same Tories that think zero hour contracts are acceptable. There is nothing inherently wrong with zero hour contracts - in fact, a lot of people on them really like their flexibility. The only thing that was wrong about them was exclusivity clauses - those saying when we have no work for you, you can't work for anyone else either. And who got rid of the exclusivity clauses? Clue: it wasn't Labour.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you actually read those documents, they are formed by knowledgeable economists based on > available data. Are you claiming The Canary is written by "knowledgeable economists"? Anyway, TTIP article wasn't quite up to date. It claimed "Big tobacco ? Phillip Morris ? is using a trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to sue Australia for replacing cigarette packet branding with gruesome anti-smoking images." Even though the article was only written in January, it omitted to note that the Australian government won the case at the end of last year.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're all lunatics! Sheepishly following the Westminster elite into the economic wilderness of > the EU, where unlike top dogs Germany and France, who can freely stroll the exercise yard with all > the other 'prisoners', we will be chained and thrown into a padded isolation cell and left to > rot, other than at meal times when we are allowed to the table, as long as we don't speak (or get > shouted down by the rest if we do). I'm glad to see that you've not had to resort to irrational, wildly-overemotional arguments, Louisa. :))

Does for me.

According to HoC documents, only 33 of the 68 acres are actually what we would call CNC so you are down to 80 acres, tops. Even then you'd have to question how much of that would be allowed to 'go wild', as any current burial areas would be out. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmenvtra/91/91m82.htm

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dettol make this mould and mildew remover, great > in the shower for clearing any mould and > discolouration. > Smells bleachy for a bit, but soon goes... Keep that stuff away from any clothes/towels/carpets you don't want bleached white spots on. It's lethal.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone mention yet that if the UK opts out there's > every chance Scotland will opt out of the UK. Actually, that's possibly the one issue that WOULD encourage me to vote for exiting. :))

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of us are anti EU because it stands against our principles of > democracy and internationalism. Democracy? From the same country where, of the top three executive levels only one is elected, and that uses possibly the most undemocratic system it could find? And of the other two executive level, one is hereditary and the other by lifelong (at least) political appointment. The UK could teach the EU a lot about circumventing democracy.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The world well still be the same as the day before, we'll just be a bit more irrelevant > and have a bit less influence. This pretty much sums up my view on leaving the EU - gain close to nothing, lose quite a lot. The main immediate change is the loss of free movement in Europe - some will see that as a gain, some will see it as a loss. Other than that, most of the changes seen by the Brixiters seem to be more hopes and dreams than any actual reality.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Britain STILL depends on coal for 40% of its > electricity - but now it is making a Russian mine > owner hugely rich, not us If we left the EU, that would not change one iota.

Torrents are very trackable - your IP address is easily seen by rights holders and they are looking more and more to find people to take to court to make an example of. You can get around this with a VPN, but that will cost you. But then, as Steve said, there is a lot of malware out there on the torrents. The box set of seasons 1-5 is available in the UK.

There are lots online via flash players, though of varying stream quality. http://wwitv.com/television/104.htm

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > It's not perfect, but millions of jobs rely on it. > > It would be lunacy to leave. > > Jobs for who.. ? People who will be happy to work > for ?3.50 an hour.. ..or less. Over 20% of our GDP is the financial industry and I think that will be the main loser. Leaving the EU will make quite a few institutions rethink where they want to base their operations. Frankfurt are already making preparation to make a move on them should Brexit come about. The knock on effect, especially in London, will be significant. How many non-financial jobs, from couriers to sandwich shops, are reliant on a healthy square mile?