DJKillaQueen

I agree that the reduced SNT coverage is a bad thing. I'm a fervant supporter of the SNT and as far as I can see there has been no consultation from Scotland Yard with local residents on cuts. I think they are underestimating the value of localised community policing. On the youth service thing, do you happen to know what the driving reason for the move is? Is it financial? I'm not convinced that the increased travelling distance will impact as much on those using the service as you think it will. They are obliged to attend appointments because they are after all offenders. Where does it say we should make life as easy as posssible for those that get into trouble? So what if they have to take a bus/ train. They are perfectly capable of doing so, just like the taxpayers who go to work every day to pay for the service that you are arguing should be within as easy reach as possible.

I'd say that's a good thing :))

ESPN3 are covering it. *knows a thing or two about poker*

These changes to the SNT via merging of wards have been on the table for some time and my own SNT team informed our ward of what might happen months ago. Be thankful ED is merging with Village and not the Lane. My own experience of SNT policing anyway has largely been officers on bicycles and Police Support Officers on foot (even taking the bus sometimes) so I don't expect the removal of a car is going to have that much of a change. Patrol cars have never figured that highly in SNT policing. The Police are always going to be able to respond to emergencies with vehicles anyway so don't understand the issue on that one. Where there is an issue of course is less officers available per ward. SNT policing has been very effective on a local level, not just in preventing crime but also in terms of intelligence gathering. SNT officers tend to be more invested in local communities. Those are the points I think that should be made at the powers that be. Regarding the Youth Offending Service. I am assuming there are financial reasons for the move. I'm sorry James but North Peckham to East Dulwich Road is hardly a trek around the globe. Also there are offending youths in all areas of the borough. Those south of Peckham Road will find the new centre nearer to them will they not? Smacks of 'not in my back yard' to me.

Interesting piece James and the following comments are absolutely right is asking, why when we spent billions on futile invasions and war elsewhere can we not sort out the rebels in Somalia and get meaningful aid to those that need it. We can do it of course, but won't, because I suspect there are no natural resources for us to seek control over.

No. You MP, Sean and your little gang of mates prefer to back each other up rather than see what the intention of the word really was, because with you guys, it's not about an objective and fair appraisal but ganging up when the fancy takes you on whoever the next shooting target is. A right little clique of bullies amongst several on this forum. Bweing outnumbererd doesn't mean I am wrong. It was intended to insult/ slur and if you can't see that then you need your head testing..

I think we can be quite clear what 'ponces at the Victoria' meant....and it's always the same suspects, the rubbbish you tolerate on this foum and then try to reason it out with smarmy psuedo semantics. It was meant as a dig at the owners of the Victoria, and most people that use the word pomce mean it in two ways - one as a description of something effeminate and gay - the other as someone that scrounges/ lives off others......Ted has apologised for all the right reasons...geez can we leave it that.

Cross posted too and I repsect Ted for apologising and understanding why is was innapropriate use of the word...all's well and the beers are on me!

C'mon you can not condone the use of such a word...what if I'd said 'the niggers at the Victoria'...please.......it was a homophobic jibe (the word only has two dictionary definitions)......

Beg me what....the use of the word ponce is NOT ok....end of.

Well the word is derogatory and I'm sure you didn't mean 'pimp' so I'm guessing it meant it as a homophobic slur...clear enough for you?

Yeah but Ted...what did you mean to infer with the use of the word 'ponce'?

Loz...I think the argument for the banning of the gras has been well made and without it being a vegeterian crusade. Give Thomas a break.

What do you mean by 'ponce' ?

Absolutely the reality is complex. Why when other continents are finding a way to advance economically are parts of Africa still struggling? The technology is there and wealthy countries just import food of course. There is a real moral question over food being treated as a commodity. It is traded like anything else for profit by people for profit. But the consequences are real. Africa is complex because firstly people forget it's a huge continent of many countries...and some countries have resources, others don't. Secondly there are far too many military dictatorships operating in some countries of Africa and they feed a third of the worlds arms trade (notibly buying from the USA, Russia, the UK and France) when they should be buying food and technology. And then there is AIDS. That disease in rendering almost half the population in some countries as unfit to work....no western economy can sustain that level of innactivity so Africa is particularly afflicted and the catholic church is partly to blame regarding that. It will take a massive effort on all fronts over many decades to rescue the continent of Africa from the title of 'poor continent of the world'.

Force feeding a goose every day till it's liver practically bursts, is not excessively cruel? (or have I misunderstood?) There's a big difference between an animal being driven to an abbatoir (a one off event) and an animal being cruelly treated every day of it's miserable life and for what? It's not like the world needs foie gras. Just to say btw that I'm not belittling the experience of an animal en route to slaughter, or arguing it is as humane as it could be. Just that it's not comparable as justification for the production of foie gras.

Surely the point about foie gras is that there is no humane way to produce it. That's why it's production is banned here and elsewhere. So I think there is merit it arguing that it's consumption be banned too (because that is the mark of a civilised society). No person in their right mind would force feed a child in that way for the same outcome...so I really can not understand why anyone would condone the treatment of an animal in that way either. Chicken, beef, eggs etc can be produced from animals reared in a humane way, and there is constant pressure to improve practises in those areas. The other factor in all this of course is the price of food. The continued pressure to keep costs down is after all what really drives the poor farming of most animals - but not in the case of foie gras which fetches a premium price. In America we are seeing the first 'super' industrialised dairy farms...where cows (never seeing a field) are kept on a conveyer belt form shed to milking. The mind boggles.

I'd ban battery chickens too though and some dairy farm practises...so no disagreement there.... But I have yet to hear anyone who eats foie gras justify the inhumane process of production. At least a chiken can be grown, fed and lay eggs in other ways. Foie Gras can't.

Andy Gray and Ron Atkinson were employees of the channel they made their comments on so firing them was simple. Ms Osbourne is freelance so she can't be fired and nor can any kind of ban be exercised - there are hundreds of tv companies alone in the US.

Well let's ask a more simple question for those who seem to have no issue with foie gras. Is the force feeding of an animal with specific foodstuffs in order to make their liver balloon and fatty cruel? And btw foie gras production is BANNED in the UK.....why do you think that is?

We ban all kinds of animal cruelty. We also regulate many aspects of food production on the basis of being humane. Just because you want to eat the liver of a force fed animal doesn't mean you have an automatic right to do so and sometimes the only way to force a shift away from inhumane food production is to take away the opportunity to buy food produced in that way. I can totally understand Thomoas's position on this and why he feels that he can do something poitive to his cause by petitioning local restaurants. On the flipside though, I've not heard a single valid reason for producing foie gras beyond 'because I like to eat it'.

DC...Thomas is perfectly within his right to campaign for anything he feels strongly about. You might not agree with it or like it but we live in a democracy. You clearly don't agree with him, that's ok. But if he wants to petition local businesses to make ethical choices on the food they serve I don't see any problem with that (whether I agree with him doing so or not).

It's in poor taste, no doubt about that. It is a daytime trash tv programme but that's not any excuse either. Having said that, to then say why should men care about rape, equility etc just because one stupid woman exercises no boundaries of taste is equally daft.

I'd love to come to this (but have to run my footy thing). Around 20 ish years ago Jamie Thraves made a brillant short film called 'The Take Out' and then struggled to advance into feature films. Jamie is a talented guy and I'll definitely try to see this film whilst it's on general release.

I have eaten foie gras and liked it. Then I found out how it is produced and made the same moral choice I make when buying any meat, fish and dairy products and stopped buying or eating it. Just because there is a market for something doesn't make it ok.