Burbage

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I will continue to pay for the hosting (with the

> same provider probably) but want (to buy) another

> program to make the website in. Something easy

> like iWeb (and for a Mac, obvs)

Everweb, then, which is meant to be an iWeb replacement-type thing. They have a 'standalone' option, still, though they're don't seem very fond of it.

http://www.everwebapp.com/

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dunno.. but suspect both those places try to

> entice you in with the promise of a free website

> builder but then you have to pay for their

> hosting. If you stop paying for the hosting you

> probably lose the website as well.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dunno.. but suspect both those places try to

> entice you in with the promise of a free website

> builder but then you have to pay for their

> hosting. If you stop paying for the hosting you

> probably lose the website as well.

Yes. That's because things cost money, one way or another.

But free web-building-and-hosting things do still exist, up to a point. Weebly, Google Sites and Wordpress.com, for example, might suit, depending on what 'additional functionality' you want. Whether these will stay as they are (i.e. free), and whether the functionality you need is free (there are often pricey 'enhancements' to be had) depends on how and whether they make money. None, however, nvolve 'one-off' bits of software - the constant race against hackers, the tediously-evolving demands of awkward-shaped displays and the desirability of locking in even 'free' customers to a potential subscription machine, means it's nearly all online-only point-and-click things now. Those few that aren't, like Everweb, you have to pay for.

Some of these might do exactly what you want. Some won't. You'll only find out by trying them out. As usual, there's a list on Wikipedia.

Don't, incidentally, overlook what you might already be paying for. Many broadband suppliers provide webspace as part of the package, and several include website-building functionality. It's not a major selling point, so it's not often much good and they don't advertise it, but it might be what you want, so check that first.

Monkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> when I download the

> application form, none of the options seem to

> apply to me. Can anyone help please?

That may simply mean you're not eligible. Not everyone is, and if you're not a qualified person, or a family member of one, then it looks like you can't apply.

I would help if I could, but I'd need to know more about what you're doing here - in the nicest possible sense. That's probably not best done on a public forum, so PM me if someone else hasn't offered already. Possibly better than that would be to contact Citizens Advice, who may be able to help directly or, if not, put you in touch with an organisation that can.

Before all that, though, make sure the page and form you're looking at are the proper .gov.uk ones. There are a lot of scammers out there trying to make a fast buck, especially now, and the information on their sites is often deliberately wrong and confusing.

Tracey Forest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We're not arguing for tax free profit

> Jules-and-Boo. Many private landlords pay 40% as

> opposed to the 20% that corporate buy to let

> landlords pay. We're not happy with having to pay

> up to 233% tax on a zero profit.

And what is 233% of zero, exactly?

Mathematics aside, there is some good reasoning behind this as was gone through in the relevant debate in the Commons.

The basic point is that property businesses have an advantage over the individual house buyer, who gets no income-tax relief for their mortgage-interest payments, and this is obviously unfair.

Moreover, a lot of the problems in BTL came from people who had little money of their own, but used collateral from other homes to borrow other people's money to develop a business owing other people's homes. That's fine (perhaps) for the Captains of Industry that run outfits like BHS or Woolworths, who were merely competing with other businesses to stiff their suppliers.

Landlordism is, however, subtly different. There, the competition is between landlords, with tax relief and spiralling equity and the hard-working individuals with no tax relief whatever who might have saved their own money for a deposit if it wasn't for a rentier continually waving the threat of two months' notice over their families, and perennially ratcheting the rent by a fraction less than the cost of moving house.

Effectively, the market was so rigged that the removal of interest relief simply had to be done. Landlords who object are perfectly free, as the government pointed out, to sell their properties (possibly to people who need a home rather than a portfolio) and invest in something productive instead.

It would be an exaggeration to say that your response, to rattle a tin for some lawyers, beggars belief. But at least you now know what you can do.

If anyone really wants to know what's going on with Southern, the Transport Select Committee had a pop at both the RMT and Govia Thameslink on Tuesday. You can watch it online or just download the audio and listen to it while you're waiting for a train.

It's not as thrilling as Chilcot and, despite trying to land punches, the MPs didn't sound as if they understood much either, with the questions being more along the lines of 'when's it going to be better' than 'what contingency did you allow for when you took over the franchise and why not?' or "what bit of this billion-pound franchise did you understand before you bid for it?". But they will be reporting at some stage and we may see then.

The upshot is that Govia are doing what the Tories do, and blaming (a) the last franchisees for not hiring any drivers, not training any or letting them go to work for other companies, (b) Network Rail for the unashamed pig's ear of London Bridge and © the Department for Transport, whose perennially sunny prognostications always turn out ludicrous and always result in someone (or everyone) else getting hurt. All these are fair enough targets, I suppose, but assuming they'd all go away was astonishing naivity on Govia's part. Unless, of course, they've worked out that the fines for lousy service would be minimal (as dawned on the MPs around the 11.29 mark), that they get paid no matter how many (or few) passengers they carry and that anyone else taking over the franchises wouldn't, as things stand, make any better a job of it.

For what it's worth, they reckon it'll all be back on target (whatever that is) by the end of the summer, and get better again after that, and certainly within 18 months, by which time they might have trained some drivers.

The RMT dispute seems to be over the amount of safety training that guards will get, though the union representative made the points so badly that the MPs didn't quite seem to catch them. And thus Govia was able to appear to refute them with slithery ease. I doubt it'll be resolved any time soon. But I also doubt that any other franchisee would be minded to do any different.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now I like to give the Guardian a good kicking as

> much as the next person, but it most media outlets

> went with similar versions of this story. Even

> the Beeb.

Which suggests it was a plant - a story fed to the outlets by someone, probably from within the Labour Party, to further the agenda of whoever was paying them. In the old days, when there was journalism, a pre-digested leak or press release would spark at least a little curiosity. But these days, they just get lightly rewritten (if that) by, in this case, the Guardian's Religion and Hate Crime Correspondent, as it's important to get stuff out there, where it can flog advertising, and correct it later (and flog more advertising), than to worry about details.

Which leaves us to have to work out where the money was, and who might be pushing the agenda. This is sad because, in a very real sense, it hands victory to the small army of green-ink conspiracists that we thought we'd left behind on facebook.

But it's also great fun, not least because journalists, however lazy, are legally allowed to conceal their sources, even those that bribe them. That means we can be creative.

To my mind, the most interesting coincidence is that that Tristram Hunt MP got given ?20k, for no stated purpose, by Lord Sainsbury (a former minister under Blair) just before all this happened, that Tristram Hunt MP stepped out of the shadow cabinet, citing 'political differences' with Corbyn, and that Corbyn was generally Brexity whereas Sainsbury was Remain to the tune of over ?500k.

Obviously, I have no idea if there really is a link. It is, after all, possible Lord Sainsbury was not acting out of guilt, philanthropy or the fear of having to pay more for tomatoes. And maybe Tristram Hunt MP (Eton, Observer, BBC) has no idea how plant stories. And, of course, it doesn't easily fit with the idea that the Labour's woes are all caused by hard-left troublemaking, rather than Blairite (and ex-SDP) grasping grudgery.

But it's certainly a thought, and more likely, to my mind, that most of the above. Not least because all the information I've got comes from the Electoral Commission and (perhaps less plausibly) Wikipedia, rather than a bunch of other media outlets that, with respect, do little more than recycle other people's agendas.

tomdhu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why doesnt the chancelleor impose an annual tax on

> foreigned owned property just like they do in

> France, Germany etc

> etc?

There is ATED, a shiny new annual tax on dwellings that owned by companies. There are, of course, exemptions for dwellings that are rented out, open to the public, 'being developed for resale by a property developer' or not worth much, but it is at least something, and offshore companies have to pay it, too.

The 2014/5 returns show ATED raised about ?120m on the back of about 4,000 declared properties (half in Westminster), which doesn't seem very much. However, they've since lowered the threshold (twice - it's now ?500k), so it might do better in future.

> Why doesnt the chancelleor impose CGT on property

> owned by off-shore interests?

He now does. That doesn't mean anyone will pay it, as there are plenty of exemptions here, and it only affects the rise in value since April 2015. But it might have an effect, especially on those using offshore vehicles to try to dodge inheritance tax and, alongside the stamp duty increase for companies (now 15% - with similar rules as ATED), might do something to reduce the amount of empty housing.

It's all very slow, and might not have a positive effect at all. The trouble with land/property taxes - or any taxes on the rich - is that it's invariably the poor who end up paying them indirectly through higher rents and prices.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So he's weasled out of having to deal with the

> mess he helped to create

But was he weaseled, or was he bought?

Azira Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think it is remotely helpful to categorise

> the Brexiteers as all being racist/xenophobes,

Quite right. The Brexiters had a whole range of motives. Admittedly, it's not entirely clear what they were, but that could be easily solved.

Our very own Lord Harris of Peckham, for example, whose name adorns the eponymous Academy and several other notable local educational establishments, gave ?50k through one of his companies to the Leave campaign. I'm sure he's no xenophone, and would be be delighted to explain to the students the inclusive and noble reasons behind his apparently successful attempt to deny them the right to live, study and work abroad.

Such a process of engagement might pay other dividends too. For, if the schools sold tickets, it could seriously boost school funds.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> it's a poisoned chalice anyway. Who'd want to

> inherit this mess.

Well, nobody sane. Boris might, though.

Whatever he was expecting on the dawn of victory, a vituperative reception gathered outside his house doesn't seem to have been on the list. That must have hurt. And of course, he's on his own now. As an official mayoral candidate he had a team around him. As mayor he had a team around him. As Brexiteer-in-chief he had a team around him.

Now he's just a backbencher, a clownish has-been, a busted flush, with nobody to hide behind. Going for PM would bring a team back, at least for a while. The chalice might be poisoned, but it would put him in lots more history books and, to be honest, I think that's all he wants. Or the best he can now hope for.

Afterwards, however badly it went, he'd get ?100k per annum and some companionable guards for the rest of his natural life. And even if he did have to retire to some enclave for the hated - Uruguay, perhaps, or the Cotswolds - I think he'd pass the time pleasantly. He's not the sort to pass up the chance of writing a self-serving book, though he might draw the line at growing roses.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm for the People's Republic of Dulwich. We

> already have a benevolent faceless dictator. Annex

> Denmark Hill so we have the hospital, and what

> else do you need? It would be like Passport to

> Pimlico.

Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment to suggest reading, or re-reading, The Napoleon of Notting Hill", a book of dated, arguably sexist but possibly relevant inspiration.

There's a foot tunnel at Greenwich. You have to get off and push, which takes a bit of time, but compared with dog-legging through Rotherhithe, it's probably as quick. And there's a lot less traffic.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with anyone involved with the design, build, financing, operations or maintenance of the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, nor do I, or anyone I know, stand to profit from its construction.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Union breaks up.. That's good. Everyone can

> just get on trading together without Brussels

> interfering..

That's right. Just don't mention the Cod Wars.

> Look at the positive side for the future.. Look

> what can now be acheived. Come on.. you know me.

> It's not often I feel so positive about anything..

Well what, exactly?

I can see the benefit for some. James Dyson, for example, a once-famous flogger of Malaysian-made hand-driers, might benefit from tariffs being slapped on EU goods. International Motor Group, an importer of Chinese cars, will surely welcome less restrictive standards. Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire founder of a financial advice service, will do very nicely from all the confusion. And JCB, a maker of yellow diggers, might escape future penalties for their carbon emissions.

But who else will benefit? Anyone who wasn't funding the Leave campaign? I can't think of any.

The Brexit campaign mendaciously claimed to be aimed at giving voters more power. But you'll still only have one vote, and the darling politicians won't listen to your rantings any harder. It'll be the same old, same old, but with one less avenue for redress, and a single government wide open to bullying by transnationals.

This is very similar to the time when, urged by the newspapers, building society members voted to grab the money and run. That was seen as an opportunity, too. But what we got, more-or-less directly, was Northern Rock and a house-price bubble.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> Over

> the winter there was some standing water which

> killed off the grass and marooned some gym

> equipment but I think they did more work to sort

> those out.

Did they? I thought that was how the defences were supposed to work. Faced with a trade-off between flooding an inclusive communal facility or a few posh houses in The Hole, the council, abetted by Thames Water, decided it would be a better use of public money to protect the latter. Their reasoning, I gather, was that without decisive action, the cost of insuring the sort of rugs at risk would have caused almost noticeable hardship.

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just interested what people think.

You're forgetting Theresa May (not to mention Iain Duncan Smith, Sajid Javid, Priti Patel, Jeremy Hunt and Jacob Rees-Mogg).

There are many ways in which a newly-independent Britain might forge a new future for itself. But, in the light of the long debate we've just had, and given the principles of democratic representation, there's clearly a mandate for a more howlingly unhinged approach than either Boris or Govey could deliver.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On paper we gave Brussels ?350m a week.. They

> gave some of it back but told where we could spend

> it..

Exactly. Thanks to the EU, we were unreasonably forced to lavish a good few billion on moribund places like Sunderland and Teeside. Now we're out, Westminster can use it to encourage the owners of our truly strategic businesses - Tata, EDF and HSBC, for example - to keep some of their operations here.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I find it incredulous that anyone would think what

> happens on the stock market doesn't affect us all,

> esp given the history of austerity that follows

> every single major crash. When markets crash,

> government tax revenue falls, which means spending

> on services falls.

Good grief.

The stock market reflects the economy. It doesn't work the other way round. Or, at least, it shouldn't. Sometimes it does, but only when there's something very wrong.

As ???? points out, that happened in the dotcom smash, when the unicorn-chasers finally realised that the majority of flaky outfits based on nothing but debt and hope wouldn't survive so much as a harsh word. Harsh words happened and it all toppled down. That did affect real businesses and real people, but only for a while. And the newly-cleared landscape made space for outfits like Microsoft, Apple etc. to make a new sort of future, albeit a future of monopolistic cyberbullies effectively dealing in human souls.

We're now in a broadly similar situation as back then, except that financial jiggery-pokery has further divorced the economic utility of a company from its share price. So there are companies that won't cope if someone sneezes. But we can't stop sneezing just to save their blushes. In any case, there are as many speculators (the founder of Hargreaves Lansdown, for one) pouring their millions into the Leave campaign as into the Remain campaign, and I'm guessing they wouldn't be doing that if they thought they'd lose money on the deal.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What more evidence do the leave voters need to see

> that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting

> shock for our economy, should we vote to leave?

This may be a poor time to raise this, but the economic argument is, for most people, broadly irrelevant. Stock market jitters might be of interest to wealthy speculators, but they make little difference to anything real. Sure, the financial economy dwarfs the productive economy, and those who've bought financialised savings products will, once again, get stung. But that's not unusual or unexpected, and the EU decision won't make any future jitters go away. And sure, some real jobs rely on exchange rates and so on, but what, exactly are Britain's chief exports? Armaments, bits for nuclear plants, fuel oils and pearls. Hardly mainstream sources of employment. And as for the overall health of the economy, we've been told, for the best part of seven years, that we're in a surging recovery with rising employment and a dominant position in the 'knowledge economy'. For a few, that may be true. But in reality, the average (mean) income has been outstripping the average (median) income by three to one, which means most people have seen no improvement at all.

If people want anything, it's a say in how they're governed. They want to see an end to tax-dodging, employment conditions that are better than Uber's, a decent place to live for the forseeable, good schools and decent healthcare. None of which should have much to do with Europe. But when even the mildest attempt of Parliament to rein in transnational abuses is promptly rejected by both Treasury and HMRC, it's difficult to see whether voters have any say at all. This referendum is a chance to be heard. And that's why it's both dangerous and unpredictable.

For the only arguments being debated seem to be the economic ones. That's understandable if you understand the interests of the campaign funders. A major donor to the leave campaign is, for example, a big importer of cars from the far east; a major donor to the remain campaign is a large importer of European cars. Sometimes it's a little less clear - JCB, for example, competes with Hitachi and exports to Europe. But then, JCB has recently been fined for breaching carbon-trading rules, so it might just be harbouring a grudge. Either way, we've been left with a debate confined to the narrow interests of competing businesses, because that's who are paying the bills, which is hardly democratic or enlightening.

And that's the danger. Without a proper debate, voters may just see this as an opportunity to vote for change, and vote for that regardless. That's understandable - if the EU debate has taught us anything, it's that our leaders aren't fit to lead, our institutions as corrupt as we suspected and elections at the mercy of corporate donors and axe-grinders.

But what we should be voting for is a world with a little more peace in it. A bit more cooperation. A little joined-up thinking. And a little less competition. All most people want is a decent life and a future for their children, and that should be taken for granted. It shouldn't always have to be a fight. Compare and contrast, though, the actions of our government, that's slowly turning the screw on the low-paid, the disabled and tenants of social housing, and the EU, which has done more to protect our environment, human rights, working conditions and privacy, than would have suited the paymasters of any British government. That's not because the EU is particularly efficient or benevolent, but because it's much more expensive for corporations to bully the EU, whose politicians at least demand a decent price.

There is also the immigration debate, but that won't trouble the young. Quite the opposite - for though they can't hope to buy a house in London, or even most of England, there are 27 other countries they're allowed to live in, and immigration can work two ways. It may cost serious money to learn another language properly (our own schools and universities aren't great at that), but the EU makes studying abroad a real possibility and opportunities are good. It's only those stuck in a silly housing bubble of their own making that are trapped, and we can't blame the EU for that.

I suggest the Community Council invite a representative of the relevant department to explain to the bewildered public exactly how 'visual harm' is defined, how it is measured, what the threshold of 'sufficiency' is, who and how decided on that threshold, details of any consultation held and, of course, documentary proof that the Council has never enforced against anything objectively measured as being below that threshold.

I'm sure they'd be delighted that we're so interested in their work, and be eager to explain.

And, if not, at least we'll know who they're really working for.

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How much bad karma do I get for chucking

> electronics in the blue recycling bin? I assume

> that it all goes down a conveyor belt, a sorter

> tuts loudly, complains about the idiot who doesn't

> know that WEEE has its own special place, and then

> promptly chucks it on a WEEE pile anyway.

You'd not be far wrong. But your future sluggishness depends on a number of awkward and unresolvable questions.

First, it's not the council that does recycling, despite taking the credit for it. And it especially doesn't do the recycling of electronics. Veolia doesn't do that either, though Veolia does run the Mobile Recycling Service. Which, as many will have realised, is bugger-all use to anyone, not least because the only things it takes that don't go in blue bins already can already be dumped in Sainbury's car park, without the need for a bloody van.

Admittedly, the very recent removal of Sainsbury's electrical bin (a weirdly anonymous and stunted tank with a gaping, flappy chute you'd have to shove your arm up, and which would't take anything bigger than a kettle, and only then if it was endways), does give the pointless little van some purpose. But given the little van is full of bins for all the other things, as well as upbeat signage, garden refuse bags, two operators and enough pointless leaflets to give a tourist officer a damp awakening, the only point of having it is a standard-sized dustbin that's easily challenged by anything much bigger than a toaster.

Not that anyone noticed. Before it chose to manifest itself at Sainsbury's, it turned itself out glumly at "Dulwich Library", by which was meant the car-park of the Plough. But it never got much custom. Usually, in my experience, because the useful bin was always full. One printer and it's game over. They then, briefly and silently, changed it's allotted space to an unspecified location in "Dulwich Park". Although it's tempting to imagine they were hoping to lure the leisured classes out on Wednesday mornings to play hide-and-seek with knackered Dualits, it clearly didn't happen and so it moved to Sainsbury's.

Anyhow, although Veolia run it, they don't get paid by the council for recycling electricals. Or, if they are (which, come to think of it, they might), they're not supposed to be. For, thanks to the interfering bureaucrats at the EU, it's tha manufacturers, distributors and retailers of electrical goods that are supposed to do the recycling. Not that they do. What they do, thanks to a loophole disguised as an initiative, is join a Distributor Collection Scheme (DCS). Of which, in Britain, there is one, run by a shadowy outfit called Valpak that also runs the public-facing recyclemore.co.uk website which is so awake to the possibilities of the circular economy that it still has Manor Place flagged as Southwark's dump of record.

So, to the morality of blue-binning electrics. This really depends on what happens. Veolia are already being paid to "collect" electrical goods, by the industry in general through the DCS and ultimately us through the prices we pay for the goods. However, as the contract between Veolia and the council seems to allow Veolia to charge the council more if the 'quality' of recyclables is poor, and electrical recyclables seem to devalue blue-bin 'quality', then Veolia are probably able to get paid twice for errant light bulbs and toothbrushes. In that case, depending what exactly in the 'commercially confidential' contract that will have, inevitably, been drafted by council bureaucrats with, thanks to that self-same confidentiality, no incentive to do a proper job, it may be that every illicit electrical you casually blue-bin might remove urgent social care from a dozen needy denizens.

Happily, both this moral quandary and the Mobile Recycling Service can be avoided. That's because, in 2012, the EU became so miffed with the frankly indolent reality of recycling (as opposed to the plethora of 'initiatives' that kept our 'creative industries' lucratively busy turning out vacuous bilge for billboards, internet and television loudly proclaiming how we should all be doing our bit or preparing for eternal torment), decreed that all large electrical retailers should have on-site collection points for electrical recyclables. They did not decree that they should advertise these facilities. But, nevertheless, there they are.

Which means that, since 2014, car-less residents with broken tellies have no longer had to trudge all the way to the Reuse and Recycling Centre, just off the Old Kent Road, but can instead simply nip across to Currys.

Of course, what the council would prefer you do is pay them ?18 to send Veolia round with a truck. That may be what happens for many. Those that don't just leave them on the street for kittens to tread on or children to eat, at any rate. But, to my mind, that's morally murkier. As we've already paid for Veolia to do that through the DCS, then paying any extra seems to almost encourage a fraud.

If your main concern is environmental, then it really doesn't matter. None of the bodies, objects or organisations concerned give a minimalist fig about that and, whatever you do, it'll almost certainly end up as landfill, probably in the country where the stuff was made, and labelled, if Whitehall can finesse it, as an 'international development' package.

"Southwark has already begun a Borough-wide programme to install double yellow lines for a distance of 7m around every

junction", says Conway/AECOM.

So, first we were told 10m, then 7.5m and now it's allegedly down to 7m.

Is this:

a) a very modest victory for common sense

b) a typographical blunder

c) proof that none of Conway/AECOM's numbers can be trusted

d) evidence of a vested business interest undermining democratic oversight

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sadly not yet.

And nor should you expect to, now that the mayor's changed. When that happens (and sometimes when it doesn't), TfL tneds to box everything up, label it 'legacy' and chuck it in a cellar. They'll now be preparing for a new strategy, budget and priorities, and everything will be put back to square one.

It's bad enough for things like this, but they've pulled this trick, at least twice now, to delay upgrading pedestrian facilities at some 1,000+ junctions of concern around London. In each of those cases, they've started with five- or six-year plans (one can only assume they deliberately choose timescales beyond those of the mayoralty) which have all been allegedly scuppered by new budgets and priorities, and had to be started again. As far as I know, they have never got beyond appointing a team to decide what priority the assessment of each junction should have, which should tell you everything you need to know about their attitude to safety - assuming their poster campaign, which starts and finishes at blaming the dead guy, hadn't told you enough already.

If you really want something done, then you'll have to put in a new complaint. Preferably in the form of a physical letter, and preferably copied in to a couple of their legal folk as well, who might understand how bad it would look, and how expensive it might be, if a cyclist expecting an ASL at that junction were to find there suddenly wasn't one.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> " The money would be used to develop plans and

> apply to Lambeth council for planning permission."

>

Well, who'd pay good money for a hole in the ground*?

*Disclaimer: This is not intended to annoy, alarm or distress anyone who is, was or has ever been annoyed, alarmed or distressed by those who claim to believe a decent religious/humanist burial is an assault on the planet in a way that comfortable homes and dropped-kerb driveways somehow aren't.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given

> the state of the world you think people would find

> something better to do.

Ah, but that's the trap. There literally isn't anything better to do that anyone can afford to do.

It's primarily because we're a developed economy - probably an overdeveloped one - where money is no longer a means of exchange or even a store of value but, in and of itself, the purpose of economic (and, increasingly, social) activity. As one economist has put it, it's all about profiting without producing, and more money's now needed to support non-productive activities (those tied up in purely financial shenanigans) than are given up to providing goods and services.

To take a longer view, we've gone from an agrarian to an industrial to a knowledge economy, and now we've hit the buffers. The only thing left is a wholly virtual economy, and not in a good sense.

That's why, although our economy is growing in terms of GDP, productivity is flatlining.

Fashion is an aspect of this as it's an almost financial business. The goods, such as they are, have no relation to the money tied up in them. Slap a brand - the five minutes' work of a long-dead designer - on stuff you've got for tuppence a ton, probably on tick, from the benighted sweatshops on the other side of the world, and you can flog them to the dependents of kleptocrats and the cannier sort of estate agent for a fortune, even if, in a few months, they'll be decorating the rails of the charity shops or being picked for rags. It provides some sort of employment, but between the luncheon-voucher internships and the zero-hour shelf-stacking jobs, there's not much scope for trickle-down. Even where fashion could, arguably, do some good, as in its cancer-curing PR stunts, the fashion houses tend to act as fundraisers rather than fund-givers, and it's customers' money they hand over in the blaze of positive PR, not their own which is, for the most part, tied up in land banks or similar tax-avoiding wheezes.

In other words, because all the cancer-curing money is busy making more money by being hedged against hedge funds getting their hedges wrong, we're all stuffed and there's no hope for anyone. Which is, presumably, why people are hurling their rent at broken trousers as if there was no tomorrow. It's sad. But arguably an improvement. Not so long ago, it was difficult to get on a bus without suffering an eyeful of piebald knickers.

Liam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Any support from the football club for a

> development is based on the fact that the club

> will not be required to ground share and move out

> of the area. On that basis it will be necessary

> for the club's stadium to be completed prior to

> any development on the current site.

That's true. And so, if HDML fail to make good on that promise, DHST could withdraw their public support of the planning application.

The trouble with that is HDML are only bound to anything once the the application is approved, after which DHST's support would be no longer needed. So what's to stop them deciding to dissolve the memorandum once that's happened? Sure, HPG own the club, and may have made pledges on their own behalf. But, equally, those pledges could be read as an intention to offload the (allegedly lossmaking) club back to the community once it's of no further use as a bargaining chip.

It may be that, in projects like this, there are no cast-iron guarantees. But I don't think it ever hurts to ask, nor to assess the risks as rigorously as the benefits.