DJKillaQueen

This is true Loz. The Pirate bay is simply a P2P facility. The pirate bay does not put any of the torrents up itself. That some users choose to use the facility to share files they do not own the copyright for is the main argument for defense. It's like saying that because a car can be used to kill someone that the manufacturer should be closed down. Previously it has been the onus on the copyright owner to sue for breach of copyright in a civil suit. That still remains the case for copyright infringement accross many types of media. Why it should be any different for the internet baffles me. Why governments have to get involved also baffles me. H there is nothing weak in my argument. In fact I'd say that justifying shoplifting as a teenage middle class rebellion is laughable. You were a thief....end of. There is absolutely no difference in your lack of consideration of the impact on the businesses you stole from and the lack of consideration for the impact on your business from the person that stole from you.....do YOU get it now?

I shoplifted when I was a kid, but that doesn't put me in the same bracket as the 19 year old thugs who message, facebook and telephone their friends inviting them to ram-raid Peckham See H this is where you get into trouble. The majoirty of kids have never shoplifted anything. Crime is crime. There is no distinction for many law abiding children and adults alike, between someone who steals from a shop and someone who steals from the internet. I don't think you are in any position to critices theft from yourself if you yourself have thieved from others. You gave no thought to the shopkeepers you stole from but yet feel outraged that some equally unconcerned idividual infringed your copyright. To justify your own criminal behaviour by making it somehow relative to more serious or bigger operations of criminal behaviour is just hypocritical.

DJKQ's argument that it's not going to be entirely successful is also illogical. There are 13,000 cases of rape in the UK every year, does she suggest that we legalise that because it can't be completely stopped? That's a ridiculous analogy H and you know it. Nowhere have I said that we should legalise internet piracy. It is however perfectly reasonable to point out just how difficult it will be to eradicate, just as all illegal activities are impossible to eradicate. A belief that there is somehow a technological answer to internet piracy is idiotic...that is all that I am saying, and that the best we can hope to achive is a reduction by making things harder (and yes through the implementation of the law). Please cease with this broken record you are stuck on that I or anyone else thinks internet piracy is acceptable. We do not. my example of the US attempt to illegalise internet poker is a perfect illustration of my point.

Entirely agree Loz. A good example to throw in the mix is the US Port Authority law on internet poker.

Pleasse stop this nonsense H. If you can't have a sensible debate without getting angry then maybe you should take a break and calm down. NO-ONE is defending illegal copyright infringement on this thread. Not myself , UDT or anyone else. We have in fact tried to seperate that issue and indeed any illegally activity from the idea that an ISP should restrict content available to their customers based on the corporate deals they may take out with various web service/ site providers over equivalent rival services. High courts already do force illegal operations on the internet to close, as do the Police etc but the problem is bigger than the resources to deal with it. It's unnacceptable that you have been a victim of copyright theft and I totally understand your anger and personal loss because of that. But unfortunately...prohibition has never stopped anything. I don't know what the solution is. My personal view on the wider issue of net nuetrality however is that any attempt by ISPs to for example, buy exclusive access to youtube content for it's customers only, will be a bad move. Because that is exactly what big corporations will attempt to do if the net neutrality agreement is changed. They will buy exclusive access to the most popular sites for their own customers only and then charge a premium for access. THAT is what is at the core of the net neutrality debate, not the freedom for any Tom Dick and Harry to do whatever they like, be it legal or not.

I have to back UDT up here H. Net neutrality is about you being able to access the same sites easily from any ISP account. It's designed to stop companies having private deals with other companies that then incites them to block access to rival companies via their internet access. At the moment a company can only promote say a search engine, without blocking acccess to other search engines via it's connection. Imagine if BT (which promotes yahoo as a search engine partner) then blocked or made difficult access to google search engines. The issue of illegal activity on the net, including piracy is entirely different.

Regulation of access via fair usage is very different to regulation of which sites can be accessed and the speeds at which sites can be accessed (which is the main argument of those campaigning to protect net neutrality) though. Just as an aside on fair usage and bandwidth, we have a BT busness line in our tenants hall and provide free wi-fi. The cost to us of providing that is no more expensive than a residential customer would pay for their line and broadband (some residential packages are more expensive even). But as a business customer we get anything up EIGHT times faster download speeds, with no regulation of bandwidth at peak times (something BT do automatically with residential customers). Our dl speeds are guaranteed and in the envent of a fault, a four hour repair turnaround is also guaranteed. So there already is a two tier service in place depending on customer type, rather than price paid.

The Pirate Bay though is just a site. The torrents it feeds are available through other sites like isohunt...so it's a futile attempt to block torrents that can be accessed elsewhere anyway. Also most people who illegally download know exactly what they are doing and how to get around detection and blocking by using proxy IP addresses and using other software like Peer Garden that blocks the likes of BT et al from seeing what you are downloading and from where. For example, if I want to watch a legal live stream from say Canada but can't because it is set to only allow Canadian IP addresses to watch it, I simply only have to use a proxy Canadian IP address to get around the block. There's tons of software available to do that. There's no doubt that piracy has affected the revenues of the music industry but I doubt those downloading illegally would buy even a fraction of the music they download if they couldn't steal it, so actual loss of revenue is hard to measure. The movie industry is making more revenue than it ever has from after sales so again hard to know just what the real cost of piracy is. I totally agree with UDT on the issue of net neutrality though. That some corporations should be allowed to 'tier' the internet is wrong. Those companies do not 'own' the internet.

Hmmm.....teenagers use the word gay to mean naff and stupid too but it is hard to seperate it's connection with homosexuality and the idea that anything (or anyone) 'gay' is therefore inferior. And before that it was a word commonly used to hint at immorality and/or promiscuity (a use that can be traced all the way back to the 1630's) which then prompts the question as to why homosexuals adopted the word for their own use (thought to have emerged into mainstream language from slang used by homosexuals themselves around the 1940's). What's most interesting to me is that a word that originally was commonly used to insinuate promiscuity/ immorality and prostitution has come to mean naff and stupid in less than 100 years, with a little homosexual adoption in between. The evolution of languase is fascinating sometimes.

LOL ;)

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All church services are 'gay' What does that mean?

You are twisting these simple facts beyond all recognition simply because you have no rational argument against this that is based on facts rather than emotion. You are very patronising, esp given that housing issues are something I have continued experience of through my voluntary work (and have engaged in many detailed debates on this forum on that issue). As such I have a very good understanding of the pressures of the market forces vs social housing vs the situation people sadly find themselves in (along with a thorough knowledge of the facts of housing revenue and financing). All of my arguments are based on facts...the fact that the proportion of rent to income is too high....that too many people can not afford private rents without tax payers money being sunk into housing benefits. You are presenting an argument for housing solutions based on quota rather than need. I simply disagree with that and think I have made a good argument for my reasoning (whilst feeling no need to personally insult your intelligence). You can not explore workable solutions to the housing crisis without understanding why the crisis exists in the first place, hence debates around financing and rent capping being more than relevant. Again you simply fail to understand how the government creaming of rents impacts on local authorities ability to maintain stock. It is not a subsidy at all...it's money that should never have been taken by the government in the first place and it is the taking of that money that has left local authorities unable to fully maintain their stock. This is thankfully going to change. People need to be housed. It doesn't matter where we house them, we will have to build homes to house them or regulate rents to make more private sector homes affordable. It may as well be London as anywhere else.....ALL capital cities have a higher than avarage of poorer demographic residents. There's nothing unusual there. So there you go...that's my view...London can have a higher percentage of social housing, because it's in the nature of a capital city to do so. Happy now? I really can not be @rsed getting into another pompous discussion with someone with a desire to dismiss another's opinion (whether you disagree with it or not) as emotive and off point................that's just disrepectful to my intellect and sadly a reflection on yours.

Are you really suggesting London should be a ghetto for those on above a certain salary. That's completely insane. London belongs to all of us, not just the wealthy. The unemployed also have more chance of finding work in London than they do in many other cities, which is why people come here, but also the level of unemployment is London is lower than other parts of the country too so London can accomodate it. My point is that shifting the poor, or unemployed or whatever to anyher place isn't doing anything to address the problem of unemployment or housing people in any kind of afforable way. So it's no answer to anything. Rents and house prices are not soley the result of supply and demand. They are also the result of a completely and isanely deregulated sector that through it's deregulation, has been artificially protected from normal market forces. We have had three recessions in the last 30 years and not a single one of them has meaningfully impacted on house price inflation. But where Loz is rigbht is that it's too late to change any of that, so it won't be changed. You are absolutely wrong on the financing of social housing. This is an area I know a huge amount about. House building is funded by capital loans and grants that HAVE TO BE PAID BACKED WITH INTEREST. The reason why rents are not sufficient to service social housing is because the government takes a percentage of the rent paids (like some kind of tax) and then retiurns part of it as housing subsidy (creating the myth of government subsidy). If southwark for example were allowed to keep ALL of the rent they collect...they would have enough to cover the service costs of their properties. This is thankfully about to change under new legislation devised by the last labour government and to be put into place by the current coalition.

First of all, social housing is not provided for or subsidised by the tax payer. That is a myth. Capital loans used to help fund the building of homes have to be repaid and that repayment comes out of the housing revenue budget, which is rent paid. In addition, if the governemnt didn't cream off a percentage of rent paid to local authorities, they'd be in a far better position with regards to the financing of capital building. It's worth noting that under the Thatcher governemnt, local authorities were not allowed to spend the revenue from the sale of council homes on the rebuilding of new homes to replace them!!! There is a lot of ignorance about facts of the financing of social housing and I wish people would do some research first before believing what they read in the media. With regards to where social housing should be built.....London holds around 12% of the UK populstion. That's normal for a capital city. If we are to locate people out of London then there need to be jobs, schools, hospitals and all the other things needed to accomodate that population. It's not as simple as building homes anywhere where there's space. Some Northern cities for example have demolished housing because the populations of those cities have shrunk drastically over the past 30 years while the south has increased. There are very goood reasons for that, linked to the economy. And every local authority has a waiting list, unable to build sufficient new homes as it is. Every local authority also has a shortage of three and four bedroom homes as these properties were the first to be snapped up under right to buy. London can house every single person on the current waiting list. There are more than enough empty properties at any one time. The issue is 'affordable housing'. Around 200,000 people in full time work in the capital have some of their rent paid by HB because they don't earn enough. Are you suggesting we move those people out too? Or just those on the waiting lists, some of whom also have low paid jobs in the capital. Because that is the real problem. Average rents are outstripping salaries. It's a problem right accross the country and a gap that is continuing to widen. We need to address that as much as building affordable homes.

S&R's video is close to the bone but sick? not imo. The video is a comedy sketch, but one that would invite lots of complaints to ofcom I'd conceed. Anyone remember this one? :)) Or this lol.

I'm also pretty sure that if either DJKQ or GormlessTruth had control of the exchequer we'd be in a worse situation. Why? I have always argued for growth through investment in people prepared to work hard for themselves and in turn employ others and that people in work paying tax is better than people out of work taking benefits. This government, not unlike the last conservative government believe that higer unemployment is a price worth paying. It makes no economic sense to me or many extremely bright economists who think the same way. Pretty much every prediction the coalition have made regarding the impact of their policies has been wrong. Hard to champion that level of miscalculation I'm afraid.

Indeed. Time they accepted their policies are making things worse.

I go to Peckham Cinema regularly. I go to watch a movie and never have any complaints about the experience or quality of projection for example (have complained about out of focus projectors a couple of times at the Ritzy and Clapham Picture House though). Only once have I been in an audience at Peckham where someone was chatting on their mobile. And I stood up in the middle of the cinema and told them in no uncertain terms to turn it off and they did! I agree with whoever said it above. Certain movies, at certain times of the day or on certain days are going to attract younger and/or noisier audiences, but that is the same in every cinema. At 4.99 Peckham is affordable, especially for families and those on low incomes....or are we going to suggest that cinema should become the preserve of the middle classes and elite? It would be a great loss to the Peckham area to lose it. On the Irish Festival though, never struck me as good value for that level of funding. And like many, given that the council only funded half the cost, am mystified as to why the Irish Festival organisers couldn't still have organised a scaled down version of the event at half the cost. Is 26K not enough to have done that?

While I can agree with quids on the passage of time and unfounded sentimentality, most historians on the other hand would agree that the Titanic was symbolic of many things and marked a turning point in the aftermath of the tragedy at the time. That's what makes it an interesting episode in History. Yes people die all the time, often in tragic circumstances, but sometimes the world changes as a result of those deaths. The impact of the Titanic on society (not to mention maritime health and safety) was as big as anything that has the same impact today. Chapter Seven in Walter Lord's book eloquently communicates what Titanic stood for at the time and came to symbolise since. And it's not the only landmark in Maritime History either, to be fair. Also just to follow on Mac's point. I can totally understand why Southampton would want to mark a 100th anniversary of a tragedy so attached to the city. Who are any of us to ridicule that?

What's the matter woody (may I call you that?). Disappointed that an effort to start a thread for people to ridicule and make fun of the deaths of approx 1500 people didn't pan out that way? :D

Hi Computed, very sorry to hear of your loss. I had a similar tragic experience from my mother's death three years ago and very much understand your sense of helplessness. Try getting in touch with Eastbourne Seniors Forum and see if they can help in some way. They may certainly know of a local taxi service for the housebound and probably subsidised by the local authority too. Eastbourne Seniors Forum They might be of help to your sister for other things as well. PR...maybe Southwark Circle will be able to help computed if no one comes forward to take him(her)? Southwark Circle Good Luck x

You make the assumption that everyone migrates to London within the UK. They don't. London has a core population that goes back generations like any city. Southwark for example (one of the largest social landlords in the country) has around 20,000 households on it's council waiting list. This has seen a sharp increase of 2000 in the past twelve months and a rise of from around 15000 since the coalition came into government (probably a reflection of the recession, unemployment and welfare reform). Here's what shelter say on Southwark...... PUBLIC HOUSING LOSSES: Locally, from 2000 to 2010, 6115 Council homes were bought through the Right To Buy scheme and removed from the public housing availability. In the same decade approx 1000 households per year joined the Southwark Housing Waiting list, the total number on the list reaching a current high point of almost 11,000. It?s worth pointing out that the figure of 11,000 households does not mean 11,000 people are waiting but means that 11,000 people and in many cases their family and dependents are also waiting for homes. NEW BUILDS and WEALTH: In the same period 5470 ?affordable? homes were built across the Borough although this has not in anyway impacted on or diminished the massive Council waiting list suggesting that ?affordable? housing is not an option for most on the list. In the same period again house price to income ratio has nearly doubled in the Borough and the average selling price of a home in Southwark has quadrupled. Again from 2000 to 2010 average incomes on Southwark have rocketed as a result of the new middle class residentials in the area. It?s not that poor people are earning any more money that makes the statistics high, its that the new wealthy people in the area skew the stats upwards. One final addition worth adding is that the figure for empty homes in Southwark now stands at 3367 dwellings. Accross london there are an estimated 370,000 households on waiting lists (around 30% of the national figures approx). So that's how much affordable housing London needs. Shifting them out to other cities isn't the answer as they won't find social housing there either. It's a shortfall nationwide and one that is rising all the time. One of the impacts of welfare reform has been a reduction in private landlords willing to rent to those needing Housing Benefit. Not quite what the government told us all would happen is it? And even more demoralising is that the government want to reintroduce high discounts for the right to buy scheme.....to further encourage the offloading of social homes. They have followed with a promise that every home sold will be replaced but it won't happen, mainly because the government favours private partnership development whereby a developer receives grants in return for including a certain (and low) percentage of homes for housing association ownership within their development. So the number of social homes built will be a low percentage of private sector peoperties built, meaning that it's the market forces of the private sector that will determine home many new affordable homes are built....not social need for those homes. Totally backward. If we want to go back to a time when families live out of one room because that's all thay can afford then let's just keep going on as we are.

The other issue is that not all the passengers could be saved so a choice had to be made. As pointed out above for all the reasons stated, it was seen as the right thing to be done at the time that women and children be saved first and men tough it out to the inevitable end. There is another aspect to this victorian view of chivalry. While it's correct to say that women and children were seen as weaker, women were also the child bearers. Their role in continuing and raising the human race was also given some value. This was still a time of high infant mortality (birth rates were accordingly high) and population was regularly culled by diseases we can treat easily today. Women regularly died during child birth too. It was all just a reflection of the times. Thimgs are different today and have changed on the whole for the better. In the aftermath of Titanic many rules regarding Maritime Health and Safety were changed. Today there would be no need to declare women and children first as all ships contain enough lifeboats/rafts for every passenger. There are still issues in reacting to accidents at sea though, that cost lives, and issues regarding the design of some types of vessels that accelerate sinking when accidents happen. Ultimately though....human error is something that no amount of tinkering with laws can completely eradicate, along with human behaviour, in all it's forms and variety, in the face of danger.

Lets change the term 'social' housing for 'affordable' housing....because that is essentially what we are talking about. The fact is, that too many people are priced out of the private housing sector, be it for rental or purchase. So that's how much affordable housing we need...around two million homes nationally. Either social housing can be built to create those affordable homes (the rents of social housing are controlled by legislation) or the government can do as some governments do accross Europe and regulate the private rented sector by restricting the rate at which rents can increase or by capping them and by guaranteeing long leases to tenants (another aspect of social housing is that no one can evict you every six months). It's a total myth to think that deregulation and free markets take care of these things. It is plain for all to see that it does not. It is also true to say that in some areas of the country there is a surplus of available housing, but they also tend to be areas of high unemployment and poor socio-economic diversity. People are not going to move anywhere if they can't find a job. So the cities of the South tend to be over populated, and those of the North under populated. Rents are at a record high. The government changes to Housing Benefit have had no impact whatsoever on rents. I personally know of several families in social housing crammed into one bedroom flats because there are not enough 3 and four bedroom properties available for them to apply for...in one case a family of five! It's not just that we need affordable housing....we need the right kind of housing too.

It could be that your computer is seeing them as hidden. Worth a try to see if that is the case. Go to control panel > folders. There will be a tab called 'view' there and in that list you have the option to tick 'show hidden folders'.