DJKillaQueen

Imagine the consequences of an English parliament top heavy with Scientologists or Taliban I take your point but we are not in a part of the world where that is likely to happen. The Head of State is also Head of the Anglican Church - and 'Defender of the Faith I assume we are talking about the Queen here.....who never uses her constitutional power to overrule parliament...so it's kind of meaningless, beyond defining a dominent religious culture. Why is it that the indigenous population cannot find someone with a common heritage worthy of their vote? Like Dave says, this is something we'd expect to hear from a nationalist party. What on earth is an indigenous population anyway? Is it not enough to be born and educated here? Because many Jewish people are. Obviously, I too would never vote for someone who used politics to further religious aims....but it is also possible to seperate the two. Many MPs do that.

5 sugars????

Does it matter though what faith someone is? Aren't church and state supposed to be seperate in the UK anyway? I don't think it really matters what background an MP holds as long as they are the best person for the job. It is, for me, a job that requires more interest in the greater good than the self - and that is were I think a lot of present day MPs fail us. Historically though, it is individuals from the upper classes whom have supported social struggle and protest by the masses, who have then facilitated social change within government. In recent decades there has been a shift away from intellectuals in parliament, to lawyers and economists, and that I think has had the biggest impact in the calibre of person now involved at that level in government.

LOL ????....... It must be friday :))

It may seem like a lot of money but what you have to remember is that these are facilities that will last for many years to come and see lot's of people using them. At a time when many schools no longer have playing fields, anything that provides exercise and sport for young people (as Athenlay do) has to be a good thing as well.

I don't think anyone's trying to excuse the behaviour Otta, and she will be punished for it via the courts....but there is I think a sense of media overkill on it. The woman's mental health is a consideration when determining what may have precipitated the incident. We don't see from the video how the rant started? There's a differnce for me between an unprovoked rant and something that may have been pre-empted by something......did a row break out for another reason for example before turning nasty and being filmed? Or was the woman already agitated for other reasons before getting on the train (an agitation that can be the symptom of a mental health condition for example)? That will all be considered in court.

PD you are over reacting, for the reasons others are eloquently pointing out. Incidently, nowhere has there been any evidence presented that this woman was either drunk or under the influence of drugs. That is something you have assumed from watching a 20 second video clip. I commented earlier my impression was that of an angry woman rather than drunk one but we can't really know either way unless some factual evidence is presented. UDT is absolutely right in that people are verbally racially abused every day of the week. Katie is absolutely right in that they don't get filmed doing so. If you really believe that we should have a policy of taking every child into care when a parent displays racism then perhaps you would like to give an insight into how that will possibly be better for the children and society as a whole. We already have thousands of children in care who can not be found foster homes, and many of then suffer from being in care. That is why professionals remove children only as a last resort, because it is widely accepted that the best place for a child is with parents - even if that parent has one or two views that you, or I or anyone else doesn't like. Anyway...in the case of this child, the woman has a husband, the child's father. So unless both parents really are unfit to look after the child, I can't see any reason why this child should be put into care.

As should the welfare of the child who may be in jeopardy if this person is unable to control herself in public, yes? No....because that is a premise for removing every child whose parent ever has a row, get's drunk, loses their temper or ever says anything that can be considered offensive.... My father often used racist language. Should I have been taken away from my parents for that? Absolute nonsense. And I didn't turn out to share his language in either child or adulthood either.

I have to back you up there BB100. Some anti-depressants don't work for some patients and can produce aggressive side effects and make the symptoms worse. There are many degrees and forms of clinical depression and a multitude of chemical and otherwise treatments, which sometimes take consultants time to get right (and sometimes they never find a right treatment). Another thing to understand is that many people with depressive illnesses hide them (because of the attitude to mental health that many people in this country have) and it isn't until they reach a crisis point that they finally get help. Look at Gary Speed for example. Depression is a serious illness. It can render normally sane, organised and level headed people into a state that of being that is completely out of character. In some that may be agressive behaviour. In others it is reclusivity and absolute fear. And stress is a common trigger. We don't know what kind of mental health issues are specific to this woman, what kind of treatment she was having etc. She does have a husband (so we might assume he jointly cares for the child). And we still don't know what precipitated the outburst. Did she really just sit on a tram and start ranting without any kind of trigger? The content of her rant is one thing....and should rightly be criticised. But any ongoing battle she has with depression or any other mental health issue should be taken equally seriously too and considered.

Interestingly that article states 'refused bail for her own safety'. I do feel that this woman has been trialed by media, without the full facts being known.

She pleaded not guilty this afternoon and was refused bail, which I'm guessing is because psychiatric reports are pending. It appears she has mental health problems - and has suffered with depression since her late teens. No mention of alcohol or drugs though.

I totally agree with that Loz. Even Joe McElderry has managed to sell twice as many copies of his Christmas Covers Album (signed to another label) than he did copies of his Cowell winner's album (before being dumped by Syco of course). Leona Lewis has been made completely boring as well. In many ways it's better not to win the xfactor. As an aside, Micha B is in talks with Missy Elliot for a collaboration and Kelly Rowland is keeping her hand in too. Can't see Cowell letting her go to any other label but his own though.

The playgroup isn't closing. It's looking likely that another children's organisation will take over the running of it. The council has already committed itself to funding the maintenance and running costs of the building. The only issue from the cuts was staffing, which in the absence of another organisation running it could be done by volunteers anyway. There's a meeting on Thursday if anyone is interested in finding out for themselves.

But aren't those works the tail end of the TFL funded works along Rye Lane?

She'll be signed up and out with her first album before the end of next year. It'll be promoted properly and will do well. Not quite what happens to a session singer is it? She's much better than that and you have to remember how young she still is. Little Mix are overall better singers than the Spice Girls (Mel C being the only person who had a half decent voice). Everything will depend on how they are managed and how good the songs are that are written for them. But again, I fancy their chances. JLS were often off key with their xfactor performances but have done very well for themselves since. Agree on Marcus following Joe McElderry, but think he will have a great future in musical theatre. Matt Cardle's Biography *cough* has already made it to the shelves of poundland.....looking ominous for him too.

The one o'clock club is staying open though. It's not overkill at all. Athenlay FC are a well established club who facilitate league football for many youngsters in the area. They currently use pithes in the Park but the redevelopment of their own grounds will provide them with their own facilities. The floodlit pitch is definitely needed. I'm assuming the decommissioned pitches are on the common (prone to flooding), not in Peckham Rye Park itself (where all three pitches seem to be regularly booked out at weekends).

That telegraph article is a bit sensationalist I think. Yes there are islamic communities that share a culture but there is hardly an islamification of the entire nation taking place. Christianity and Catholicism are not without their own forms of extremism either.

I wouldn't punch you or encourage anyone to punch you just because I thought you are an idiot with idiotic views. Arrrghhhh.....and another thread starts the descent into the pursuit of personal attack. I think acm has been clear in what his viewpoint is. Maybe you agree Guido, maybe you don't, but it is possible to discuss it without resorting to insult surely? It's just a forum...chill....

I think there is a gray area with 'freedom of speech' and perhaps no right or wrong answer to it. Definitely words can cause damage, hurt, upset. Bullying for example often manisfests itself as words. Libel and slander is also the product of words. A viewpoint is just that, a viewpoint. And basis in fact usually requires more than words to validate a viewpoint (this is what the law relies on of course). Yes, we have freedom of speech and should be thankful for it, but ultimately we also have responsibility to not abuse that freedom and hurt others.

No I don't PD. Children witness far worse every day of the week in their school playgrounds. At worst the child may have a viewpoint influenced by their parents thinking.......but we can't go and remove every child from a parent because of what that parent thinks or believes. And yes, there are many cases of children with a parent who may have a drink problem where the social services award guardianship to a relative, usually grandparent so that the child can stay with the parent but the guardian is repsonsible for supervision. After all there are different degrees of drug or alcohol problems and not every case involves an adult who is completely incapable on every level or abusive. That's why every case is dealt with differently and after all the facts are know. We know nothing about the woman and the child from that clip. We don't even know what prompted the outburst....how it started or why. Maybe the woman just needs some support or help. To condemn her child to a life in care just seems over the top to me.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know France and Paris very well. > > Ha ha. > > All. The. Talents. I was in a relationship with une francaise for years, so there Max :P ..........may even have seen Nette down the Bois de Boulogne but no money changed hands ;) (I think)

I know France and Paris very well. The CRS ask to see the id cards of black people. They do that all day....looking for illegal migrants usually. I've seen it every time I go to Paris. Edited to add; They are in a similar place to the British Police force prior to the 80s riots.....when stop and search was used to primarily harass minority groups. The Scarman report changed policy with regards to that in the aftermath. France has never had a 'Scarman' report for example.

This is where I have a problem. If we start removing children because of what their parents 'think' then we are treading a thin line imo. Or do we only remove them if they 'say what they think'. And who decides what parents are allowed to say or not say in front of their children? Most children who are removed from their parents, are done so because they are at a significant risk of abuse or the parent is incapable of caring for them. If the lady on the tram has a drink or drugs problem, that can't be managed, and the child is not being cared for properly then that's one thing, but to remove a child because a parent engages in a public verbal rant is something else, and takes us down a road that ends where?

It is true that France has a different attitude to issues of race. You only have to see how the CRS treat anyone with black skin on the streets of Paris every day to see that....but I would like to think that here in the UK, the man on the metro would have been charged in the same way the lady on the tram was. The UK has prosecuted non-caucasians for incitement to racial hatred so I think the law does try to be fair, even if the media reporting sometimes gives an impression it is not.

A shared stack means shared responsibility. The local authority can definitely demand your neighbour carries out a survey on this one. An unsafe chimney stack is something they would have an interest in, so as a last resort, that is defintiely an option. Worth both you and your neighbour checking your buildings insurance too as you may be covered under that for the work. I'd personally go and speak with your neighbours first and see what they say and then go from there. Put everything in writing before the work goes ahead though.