DJKillaQueen

The songs are too big for them all so far...even Matt who just killed one of my fav. Elton Jonh songs with his nerves (why are the judges saying it was a strong performance?).....

Yeah but facebook is hardly a yardstick of common sense is it? And yes, I think most people would be appalled but I certainly won't be threatening to burn down any mosques and nor will I think most people.

I view is this - 35 idiots chose to disrupt a memorial service because of something they feel stongly about in the present day. It was the worng place and way to protest. I don;t think it has anything to do with islam and I don;t think it will create the huge backlash you think it will. We've always had racists, extremists, and well, just plain old nutcases.

The fact they are only 35 and not 300 I think speaks for itself.

There was a report that some extremists (muslim) burned poppies in protest of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More here

He must report it though...otherwise the Police can't target the area.

You should never pull out because some idiot behind you is impatient. Again that's poor driving. But what you say about peak times is true. It's true for a lot of roads. There are just too many cars in London and too many people driving their children to school (a major contribution to local traffic) at peak times as well.

Quite kford. The accident that heads this thread was a car emerging, probably too quickly, from the junction, directly into the path of a bus, which was on the opposite side of the road - so visibility can't be an issue and given the size of a bus, and also had not long pulled away from a stop, making speed not a likely factor either. No amount of traffic calming measures would have stopped that particular accident. I'm willing to bet that these junction accidents are on the whole, poor driver judgement, exacerbated by poor visibility, than speed.

But what does speed have to do with the driver that emerges from a junction with bad judgement. The last accident had no element of speed involved. In fact what every one does agree on is that it can be difficult for some emerging drivers to see oncoming traffic. Speed cameras will have no impact on that problem.

And the police don't agree with you.

And Ladymuck will be thrown out of court soon enough...where she'll have to work in a pig sty to feed herself rather than the life she enjoys swanning around the castle gossiping with the other laides in waiting.....;-)

'reasonably suspects' is clear enough in my view. It instantly makes the majority of people unapproachable by Police.

I can't make this one Quids...maybe next time.

It's not grey at all....they have to absolutely sure you are linked to terrorist activity if they want to confiscate photos. So ultimately a totally unworkable law.

They all lie and Uturn on policies though. I'm still smarting by the Tory elevtion promise not to put VAT on fuel bills...and then they did it anyway. All governements U-turn and then give us rhetoric that they 'had no choice' but to do it. It's why a lot of people have very little regard for politicians, seeing them as self interested, and dishonest.

David actually makes a good point. And indeed there are several sectors that do invest in the fees of training their interns or employees. My post degree apprenticeship was entirely funded by the sector I work in. It's not an idea entirely lost on me.

I absolutely agree with every word of that Zeban.

Section 44 was suspended in July following a court ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. That's the piece of anti-terror legislation used to stop people taking photos. They are no longer allowed to stop you under section 44.

Just don't let LM drink any black sambucca....you have been warned!

I don't think there's any evidence yet that someone died in a fire or almost died because of a shortage of engine cover...that's just hypothesis, but as you say, the surplus cover is designed for those rarer incidents that do need a larger response. And the closer you trim to the bone the more likely that the surplus cover will not be enough. That's the argument that the union need to have...and they need to back it up with data, and a couple of 'what if' scenarios that are based on reality...for example, what if 7/11 happened again? In that respect London can argue it is a special case because of the heightened risks, although rare, of serious incidents. When you see FFU leaders on TV taking all their time to criticise management (and vice versa of course) the real issues get lost. The public IS interested in the real issues. The are not interested in leaders (be they FFU or LFB) having slanging matches about each other.

Although to be fair there are more than a million Brits living and working in the EU without restriction. Absolutely right...

No quids...70% of jobs were not taken by migrants...where on earth did you pluck that one from? The situation is the same as it has always been with the age old prejudices by employers to certian types of workers but what has happened over the last 14 years is that young people are finding it harder to find their first job. There is evidence that in some parts of the country things like factory work, for example, where many young people would get work (I did it during holidays when I was a student) has been filled with EU migrants by employers...a choice made by employers incidently, not a reflection of applicants. We have absolutely no way of restricting EU migration. It's a problem and a problem that we as a wealthier EU contry are not alone in facing.

Ok so there is already a fluid movement of ff cover. I must say the non return of those 27 fire engines seems like a 'let's see if they can mamage without them' tactic to me.

I?d be interested to hear what a court has to say about it. There may well be a legal challenge because as part of the new rules no right of appeal will be allowed for those whose beneifts are suspended, if they miss an interview or don't look for work or take a job and so on (irregardless of the reasons why). Some people will be forced to commit crime to survive in this scenario - is this really what we want? It wouldn't be right to force the unemployed to do only the most menial, unpleasant, humiliating jobs which the rest of us choose not to do. And similarly there are employers who choose EU workers over British ones because they can exploit them easier...swings and roundabouts. To be fair...most claimants are not on new deal Dave so are only eligible for half price bus travel. And whilst there are some resources for the unemployed there aren't nearly enough. There's a distinct lack of shortage of funding for older people who want to retrain because as you know everything has been prioritised for the 16-24 year olds for the past decade (with little success given that they now have the highest rate of unemployment). Also job centres are not geared up to help skilled, or professionsl workers. I would never find any job even remotely related to my skills and experience in a job centre (which is one reason why Labour se up specialist agencies in recognistion of that). On the few times I have needed to use a job centre I've found the staff to be useless when it comes to helping people find work (but then that's not why most of them are there to be fair). It's not their fault...the system isn't sophisticated or tailored enough to help most people back into work.

Indeed it does..but there are few things on there that I'd have never even thought of being skimmers...like putting false covers over the slot... I tend to use the same two or three cash points and would hope I'd notice if something was different but it helps to know what the crooks are capable of as well.