DJKillaQueen

If those structures are being 'lived in', you have to 'evict' the occupants before you can demolish the dwellings under planning laws.

What if the event was held on another weekend James, using say the ?30,000 now available for a future event as a result of it's cancellation. I'd like to see that. Because I like festivals that bring different people and cultures together......and to call such a thing 'bonkers' in itself would be well.....we know what. Edited to add; from the extracts you post above, it seems clear to me that the aim of the council was to put together a multi-cultural event. The date could have been any weekend.

Today it was reported that rents were at an all time high.....so things are not looking good in that respect anytime soon. I agree with H's points on getting the balance of regulation right. Without doubt, some of the answers lie in regulation, but it's no quick fix and will take time to do, without risk of damaging things further. But I also lean towards SJ's view that even getting the smallest amount of regulation in place is going to be met with fierce resistance from those who seem to be completely deluded about the problems. And yes, while not all those in banking are culpable, I think I can safely put money on those at the top being the fiercest opponents to change.

Check out mine! http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/public/gevoGyWY91uozrRSiWfpVL2ItE8X5diInap7nq-HWVgql644mP49OV5PJWVDfYarz_gV5tVPjd925GNcq6iIl4ukgwRsLIIE92XWNEGHw9ldXFwhcmuNj3DwrCswSRblIZGvdwJVFza3_hI7mjVBQpy-pRg

Jeremy, when the federal US reserve was created in 1913, using a fractional reserve banking system, it's predacessor had been abolished by President Jackson in 1835, to return America back to being a debt free nation. And Jackson said in discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out." I'll quote what I wrote on another thread; 'During the American civil war President Lincoln turned down the high interest loans offered by European banks and wanted to create an independent and debt free currency called the Greenback. He introduced the currency. Shortly after, in a secret document in 1862 written by the European and US banking institutions, they wrote 'slavery is but the owning of labour and with it carries the care of the labourers. The European plan is that capital shall control labour by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback as we can not control that'. This is the premise under which the fractional banking system was pushed, to indebt and enslave. And how about this one from Thomas Jefferson; "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." In other words...those who designed fractional reserve banking did so to control money and thereby people (and everything they own). Banks facilitate debt. It starts when the federal reserve or bank of England prints money (thereby raising inflation and devaluing the currency that already exists). Banks need to facilitate debt to make the obscene profits they do and governments have helped them greatly over the past three decades to do so by removing all meaningful regulation. Meanwhile the business that the bank suddenly refuses to lend to, still has access to skilled workers. The resources still exist to make whatever those workers can make. Nothing changes there. But the banking system decides it's better to have those workers do nothing (and for governments to borrow to pay them welfare instead!) Banks create nothing. They simply put a price on things that have always existed in enough supply to feed and house every person on this planet....and worse still work to put those basic things beyond the means of far too many on this planet, because all they care about is the money! I don't pretend to know how we turn that into something more ethical, less corrupt and fairer for the planet and the people on it......but if we are going to persist with this type of economy, there can at least be some things done to safeguard it from the boom and bust cycles of the past three decades. You and I don't feel it...but millions in less affluent parts of the world do.....when traders push the price of corn up so high it can't be bought by those who need it most. And who beneifts from those rising prices? It certainly isn't the majority. Government debt, on the other hand, is simply a choice of expenditure. We spend billions on arms, wars and doing deals on tax with corporations. The last two Conservative governments have thought unemployment a price worth paying and yet complain about the rocketting wwelfare bills as a result. Conversely the Labour Government created the kind of jobs that are fine in good times but unnaffordable in bad. That's nothing to do with the banks, but to suggest that institutions that facilitate debt, and the addiction of profit and greed over everything else are somehow 'bear no responsibility' is just ridiculous to me. That's like saying the dealer that sells the drug should have no blame applied if the addict OD's. It's all part of an unforgiving system that encourages corruption and greed. And let's remember.....our lives are but an accident of birth...and most people will be limited in what they can be, have or achieve within that lifetime. Edited to add 'But if that small number of rich people start saying half the cake isn't enough, they want 3/4 of the cake instead, then yeah people are going to get pissed off. And you and anyone else saying those people are just "jealous" is irritating beyond belief' - that hits the nail on the head for me, because that's the kind of banking and multi-national greed we are talking about - nothing will ever be enough until they have it all.

I think that's unfair H. Both SJ and I are intelligent people, as indeed are you. We both know the limitations of protest and unless you go there and find out for yourself, how do you know what most of the protestors are thinking? We are making some sweeping assumptions here about a group of people that we mostly have not ever met or heard the views of. Where has anyone suggested taking money from the rich under the threat of violence for example? And when people protest it encourages debate, and gives air time, to those that do have the articulate arguments to make.... Take this recent interview by Noam Chomsky for example..... We have only had recessions every ten years for the last three decades. It is not the mark of a stable economic structure. And is the direct result of the complete dismantling of regulations, some of which were put in place after the Wall Street crash of 1929, to ironically ensure no such crash would be likely to happen again. And banks are to blame for more than you think. There is no need for an economy based on the level of debt it is. And that debt IS used as leverage to exercise power over entire nations in some cases. It is also a power that governments have no choice but to bow to (along with the power of multi-nationals) because the pursuit of absolute profit permeates everything. And Chomsky is absolutely right.....politicians need the money of these financial superpowers to fund their political campiagns.....you won't be president without them. So where is the democracy in that? Bottom line is that the free market does NOT take care of everything. It's a myth. Some people do very well, at the expense of the majority. To think there can not be possibly any other way (I'd argue some regulation is probably the only tinkering required) is just short sighted and naive, but to think things can be changed quickly or easily is equally naive. That perhaps is the only criticism that I would levy at some of the protestors, but that is also a flaw of youth. They will spend their lifetime realising just how difficult it is to really change anything when there is no will to do so by those living in the ivory towers of wealth and power. And there have been populist movements that HAVE led to change...the civil rights movement for example.

That is an extremely useful post Tara - thank you (tu)

There's also a bottleneck on resources related to over population. Er no H...there's a bottleneck because we are one of the most wasteful species ever to exist...making things that don't last for more than enough time for those manufacturing them to keep us spending. And don't even get me started on the unethical behaviour of food markets and the multinationals controlling them. So what if some of those young people protesting can't articulate what's wrong with the version of capitalism we have, but I certainly can and if I didn't have to work I would be right there alongside them. Any idiot can see there's something not right with a system where the vast majority of wealth, power and influence in is the hands of less than 1% of those living on the planet. Just because a person doesn't have the solution doesn't mean their observation of the problem is invalid.

I think the real issue is the time it has taken to evict/demolish (ten years I think) and the cost of course. Surely, if someone breaks planning laws (the core of this dispute), it shouldn't take any council ten years to deal with it. The lesson of Dale Farm is that the longer a local authority takes, the worse the problem becomes, until it gets to a point where people start sympathising with those breaking the planning laws, and the more expensive it becomes to act. I think the Local Authority have been extremely inept throughout.

James will you please stop confusing CC funding with major events funding. The two are SEPERATE areas of funding as you well know and were so under your previously Lib Dem controlled council...nothing has changed there. Very naughty of you to somehow make out that the Labour Council are somehow at fault for not devolving the major events funding to Community Councils. After all, your own previous Lib Dem council didn't and where was your criticism then? Alan asks good questions and I'm afraid James, that I don't totally trust your answers, because you do sometimes massage things to fit your own agenda. I and a few others on this forum don't think the event was bonkers at all (and would liked to have attended), as you found out on that other thread (the cost being the only valid point for critism imo).

There's no doubt Alan, that James Barber's blog, claiming PC gone mad, that then became picked up by the local/ london press, had a major part to play in seeing the event cancelled. If you read the other thread (link in my previous post) you'll see a whole discussion, involving James, on his reasoning as to why Dulwich Park shouldn't be used for such an event amongst other things. A strong thrust of his objection was that the event (being a multicultural fusion of many things) had no business taking place during guy Fawkes Weekend and it is this he played on in his blog and as we all know, the press just love a story about plots to rebrand traditional UK festivals. So he got the desired effect and was duly reprimanded by several on the forum for it. Probably his over-riding concern, from what he wrote in that thread, is the damage that might be done to Dulwich Park in hosting such an event (along with the valid point regarding cost). It's a pity his blog couldn't have just said that instead too.

What's an iphone? B)

Read all about what part James Barber played in the cancelling of the event and why he did so, in this thread Plot to rname Bonfire Night

Contact info for those councillors is; Nick Dolezal 020 7525 1422 [email protected] Mark Glover 020 7525 1421 [email protected] Kaedean Rhoden 020 7525 3158 [email protected]

I can catagorically say that a tenant not wanting to pull out weeds would never be the reason behind a council spending the money to concrete.....and esp in the current climate....there is no money for such daft reasoning. Please contact James Barber.

It still stands that your utility provider is responsible for everything up to and including your meter. Beyond the meter (and if you own your own home) it is up to you.

As I understand things, there would have been a process for planning permission, which would include notification to those affected and an opportunity to object. I would strongly suggest contacting James Barber with regards to this - a local councillor (he has a thread on this forum). He is very good with local issues.

Hmmmm none of us qualify as citizens (having failed the citizen test) and we are also unemployable...........fantastic! *let's riot* :))

Whilst the food companies themselves won't do anything to put quality before profit, governments can legislate if they wanted to, to force them to do so. For example, trans fats have been banned in some countries and by some states in America/ canada. Sainsburrys have also banned them from their products. Why on earth don't governments ban the use of this substance? Governments allow the food companies to stuff our foods with all kinds of ingredients that are nothing to do with nutrition or even shelf life. They are substances designed to 'bulk' food so that the producers can get away with putting as little actual food in the product as possible. Maize is another popular bulking ingredient. And why do governments allow this to happen? The power of the multinational is at play again I'm afraid. At the end of the day...the only way to know what's in your pie, or fish finger, or chicken nugget, or pizza, or ready meal.....is to make it yourself.

Same here.....and I think you are right - labelling has to be part of the solution.

But how are those premium meats reared and killed Helena? Thre's nothing wrong with eating offal either...so that it goes into cheap burgers and sausages is not really the issue for me. Factory farming and cruelty by some workers at abbatoirs is. A prime piece of rump steak from a factory farmed cow for me is just as bad as the processed carcasses of chickens that go into some cheap chicken products, although the former is going to be better for you health wise. Chickens though are a particular bug bear of mine because most chicken is now of the fast growing variety (3 months to rear)...which are higher in fat content than they are protein. So even if you think you are buying some nice quality and healthy chicken fillets, you are not, unless you buy free range chicken of the slower growing variety (6 months to rear), and you will pay twice as much for it too. When I was child though...that slower growing variety was the only one you'd find in a butcher. I did see Sainsburrys stocking it at one time though. Someone mentioned stews.....that was our winter staple died as a child and I loved them. My mum used to make them in a pressure cooker with lots of potatoes, carrots and whatever else was in season too.

Hmmm I got as far as seeing that I had to register and 'punch' in and decided 'sod the test'! So I'm guessing I'm fired too :))

Most of the offal is used to make slabs of something called 'meat filler' which is then used in the majority of processed burgers - so when you buy that fast food burger, or that frozen cut price chain store burger....it is mostly offal and other bits with very little actual beef or ham in it. And it is also bleached during processing....yes I did just write 'bleach' - to kill any bacteria.

I don't think there ever was a golden age Dave. The poor just ate cheaper cuts of meat, or ate less meat. And they were healthier for it too. When I was a child, we would have a Sunday roast once a week and chicken was the luxury. Otherwise it was fish or cheaper cuts of meat. Liver too. And everything was bought from the butcher, where everything was available. Vegetables and fruit were bought from a market, where it was relatively cheap as well. What we have now is alarming rares of obesity, increasing rates of diabetes in younger people and whole generations of people who don't know how to cook, or won't eat fruit or vegetables. And the multi-nationals are not thinking about the health of any nation - just how to dominate the food production and retails markets and make as much profit as they can.

That's actually a worthy point to debate Jeremy. How do we measure suffering? If we take a human that has never been nurtured by other humans, educated etc.....would the suffering of that human be on a par with you and I? I don't tend to agree that human suffering is somehow more valid than the suffering of an animal. That's why we have rules on animal treatment, cruelty.