DJKillaQueen

Sure, I can understand how frustrating it is and the desire to teach the lippy little monsters a lesson. But that kind of retaliation more often than not is ineffective and can make things worse. Part of what bullies do is to deliberately push buttons - why give them the pleasure they seek by rising to it?

Cool...have added it :) Looking forward to the Crystal Palace game too!

I don't know why the Police were slow to respond in that instance Damien. I would have thought that if the burglars were still on the premises it would have been an immediate response. I personally have always found the Police to be very responsive. My community also liaise regularly with the SNT team and have seen a lot of good work and effective policing done by them too (especially regarding teenage crime and issues). You can shape the policing of your local area by getting involved or forming residents associations and working closely with the local Police. And it's not the law that makes people afraid of tackling anti-social behaviour Louisa (there are in fact many laws and agencies in place designed to tackle it), but a lack of support from passers by, or neighbours etc that makes people feel they are on their own. I can speak from experience when I say that a community approach removes the fear of tackling anti-social behaviour. Mouthy teens are mostly just bullies at the end of they day and like all bullies they single out vulnerable individuals. They almost never try and take on a whole community.

Then you would be arrested for assualt I'm afraid.

No one has suggested that standing up to them (with words) has legal cosequences and I wish people would actually read what is being written sometimes. The op said that the Jogger 'approached them and got right into there face and said, "Come on then?!"' - sorry but the law would regard that as an act of precipative aggression if an assault then followed. That is ALL that has been said regarding legal consquences. And I absolutely agree that communities can do more to tackle anti-social behaviour themselves, but in my experience the vast majority of people only care about themselves, that their own street is quiet and crime free, that their own kid gets to go to a good school and so on. At the end of the day, if you want society to change, YOU find some time and some others equally motivated and do something together. I live on an estate. We don't have ongoing problems with crime or anti-social behaviour, because we work together as a community and use methods that don't need anyone to put themselves at risk. But it means investing some free time, taking an interest in the people around you, your neighbours, liasing with officials, and putting yourself out sometimes.

I tend to agree with you SJ. I think this may well be the tip of something bigger....time will tell if we ever get to it. Interestingly on the radio this morning someone asked 'why now'? Surely it can't just all be about sabotaging Murdoch's SkyBSB takeover. Cameron was under fire for Coulson months ago for example. Also the previous investigation into (I think it was) a few counts of hacking concluded there was no bigger case to answer. Some of those people making those conclusions are now implicated in covering up so the whole thing is messy. Maybe it's just the result of how intertwined the press, politicians, Police etc are - we are after all talking about an 'establishment' dominated circle where they all socialise, do deals and cosy up together and wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't so powerful. But they are powerful, hypocritical and completely without morals (hacking a missing and ultimately murdered child's phone is beyond belief)....and there are implications. Do we want these people running our Police force, Press and Governments? And if it is a culture rather than the acts of a few individuals, how do we change it?

What if they'd thrown the bottle at him or tried to mug him - would you excuse that too? Of course not, but they didn't Beulah so that point is irrelevant. If they had done that then it changes the situation completely and the jogger is legally allowed to defend himself. As things stand all they are guilty of is words on a street corner and that is NOT an offence. Similarly if the jogger had just replied with words that is not an offence either but you just can't go round challenging people 'in their faces' (as the OP described). That is also threatening behaviour. Of course there are mouthy teens who hang out in groups but show less bravado when on their own. There are adults like that too. Yes they are bullies and yes they can seem very frightening to some people (I deal with anti-social teens often enough to know what the impact is). But the mob mentality of 'they need teaching a lesson' with 'a taste of their own medicine', whilst not only being ineffective (most teens will have you up on a charge double quick), just translates with another version of bullying. There are laws that protect from harassment in severe cases and as Sophie has sensibly said, if any group seem menacing or threatening, call the Police and let them deal with it - they are trained to do so and will apply the law. Don't get yourself on a charge because can't ignore a few stupid kids.

I think the bigger thing to do would have been to ignore them. They were probably just a group of teens hanging out and being a bit cheeky (and that is not a crime btw). If anything I would say his act of going up to them and getting 'in their face' was not only stupid but also an act of unprovoked aggression. He's no better than the teens themselves imo and had anything happeend as a consequence the law would have agreed I'm afraid.

It's a difficult balance to get right tho isn't it. The exposure of affairs have little to do with morality and more to do with the hidden agenda of those exposing them anyway....in that context the press abuse power and might also be in the pocket of other persona in doing so. Politics and public life automatically brings enemies (even having any kind of public viewpoint is enough to do that, as we see on this forum even) and when someone is squeaky clean (or thorough in covering their tracks), set ups have not been unheard of. For me, all that this latest hacking case does is yet again expose the dog eat dog and murky underworld of press, politics and public life. And the personel may change but let's not think that any inquiry will make a hoot of difference to the way these worlds operate in the future. The people involved are ruthless.

The resignations and arrests are rising. MM makes a very good point, that valid investigative journalism relys on something to prise open corruption - be that bribes, or whistleblowers or whatever. Such practices are as old as journalism itself. The worst thing that could come out of this would be that those who already use the law to hide their immorality/ corrupt practices, find themsleves with an even stronger ability to do so.

Perhaps that's what I've got on TV now (or rather highlights). Looks quite good....lot's of indie rocking bands. Edited to add that Blondie just performed and Debbie Harry looks and sounds fab!

I think it's each to their own isn't it. We all tend to want slightly different things in our relationships with people which why words like 'compromise' and 'compatability' feature so much. I do think though that some people just aren't cut out for monogamous lifelong relationships, so why demonise them the way we sometimes do? If two (or more) people want the same thing, then all is good and fair I say.

I thought she sold the Dulwich home years ago. I'm not arsed what kind of funeral she has....won't change anything she did.

OK fair enough...thought I'd ask as we have a footy player who can not drink alcohol so wanted to see if there was any way she could take part if she wanted to.

A question for the organisers - is there anyway that a moslem can take part and substitute the drinks for soft drinks?

Chippy is spot on there. Scargill had little respect from other union leaders because they could see that he was using the miner's dispute for his own ideological ends. He wanted to defeat Thatcher more than save jobs and in turn she wanted to defeat him and the entire coal industry. MP is quite right in that there were some profitable pits but it was an era of privatisation. I tend to think that the coal industry was shut down for many reasons...some of the blame for which lay at the feet of the unions and the government equally. The days of tax payer subsidised jobs were coming to an end, the Unions wouldn't accept change. And in addition, the idea of a nationalised industry that wasn't competitive enough to privatise irked the then Thatcher government.

It's not the same thing though ian. Someone can crash into your car and drive off...the car may even be irrepairable but the hit and run driver hasn't stolen it. A house can never 'disappear', never to be seen again (unless it's demolished). It can be damaged, it can be vandalised, it can be burgled, and it can be illegally occupied, but stolen? no. Squatters are simply illegal tenants and even legal tenants paying rent, damage property, and sometimes stop paying the rent too - landlords factor for this into the maintenance costs of renting property and account for it in rent levels accordingly. Another interesting point to make is that it takes around eight weeks for a landlord to evict a sitting tenant under contract for non payment of rent (via legal due process). A squatter can be removed within four-six weeks in most cases as the law currently stands (if the landlord acts quickly enough).

It is a multi-pronged issue. There are different kinds of squatters too. Some squatters can afford to pay rent but just choose not to. I think it is also reasonable to make squatters liable for the cost of repairing any damage they cause (whether they have the means to pay or not). Clearly home-owners have to be able to remove squatters as soon as they are discovered (that is only fair) and I'm guessing that making it a criminal offence is purely a means to give Police and Bailiffs the powers to quickly get a warrant for forced removal. So that makes sense. Councils already do have some powers to force action on property owners that allow their properties to fall into a state of disrepair. I think if councils were to be allowed to requisition empty properties then there would have to be some agreement on maintenance and so on. Again the sensible thing to me would be to work under some kind of complsary lease scheme, that would guarantee the owner that the property wuld be maintained and returned in good order but that would also act as an incentive to force property owners to do something with their properties rather than leaving them empty for years on end and risking a complusary lease.

Squatters don't steal a gome they illegally 'occupy' it...there's a clear legal difference. My view is that no home owner should have to go through the current prolonged and expensive process of evicting people who are illegally occuping a home. It should be possible to evict immediately. However I would also say that there is an equally valid argument to be be had about proerties that lie empty for years when there is such a dire shortage of affordable accomodation (esp in London). Don't know what the answer there is but many properties that do become illegally occupied are in this catagory.

Live by the sword, die by the sword I'm afraid Silverfox. Any paper has a duty to ensure the people they employ are lawful and legal in the way they go about things. NOTW got caught.

I've lived with cats for every day of my many years on this planet....not one has ever brought home a bird....lot's of mice and rats yes...but never a bird. And KK is right to ask how was this figure of 200,000 was arrived at. Sounds like you have a 'real' moggie there *bob* :)

Also most cats are pretty rubbish at catching birds.

The current plans for the junctions mentioned were drawn up after initial consultation with road users and the local community. So they HAVE listened this time to what the main concerns are, looked at supporting data and taken on board some of the suggestions, for example filter lights.

Dunno what Basem's point is...lol. Buying the best motherboard and fastest processor you can afford is sensible. Ram can always be added, sound and graphics cards can be upgraded. Sounds like a good aftercare package you have from John Lewis Peckhamrye.

Look surely the issue here is that we have a pension model that is no longer relevant to the current working and economic model. When Malthaus drew his pyramid, whenever it was, it was without the foresight to see anything like longer life expectancy and technological advancement. That for me is the key lesson. You can not apply a model for a lifetime and expect it to pan out....the world moves quicker than that. Yes the funding of pensions needs redesigning and yes it needs to be more flexible than in the past.......for obvious reasons.