Jeremy

Penguin - that makes sense, but it's sad to think that it may come to this.

MM, I think you're grapsing at straws. You stated earlier that "I am not suggesting, and nor is that government, that marriage of itself will reduce the incidence of broken families". But you just directly contradicted that by saying writing "marriage can be demonstrated to reduce the likelihood of break up and the creation of one parent families". So which do you believe? You say that you understand the causation/correlation argument - I'm not convinced that you do!

Don't blame Jimmybob for the demise of council housing - presumably any place he buys will already be privately owned. While I'm not in favour of any moves to reduce the amount of council housing available, I am in favour of having a public/private mix within developments. Private ownership within council blocks is not a bad thing. If you buy an ex-council property to rent out, make sure the return on investment will be solid, as appreciation tends to be behind the rest of the market.

Magpie, I think you are confusing the issue by talking about single-parent vs two parent families. That isn't what the debate is about. The issue is about whether marriage results in a demonstrably more stable family environment (it doesn't), and whether the government should interfere in people's lifestyles and punish those who disagree (they shouldn't).

I saw it before it was deleted. I thought it was OK, as that forum specifically doesn't target Dulwich, so not in direct competition.

As others have said... people get married because (generally) they are already committed to each other and their future families. They don't become dedicated parents because they are married. I am honestly surprised that this even needs explaining. The stats are meaningless, the argument is pointless, and the proposed policy is absurd. edited to say - and this is coming from somebody who is happily married.

Cringe comedy started with The Office? How about Fawlty Towers or Alan Partridge?

Plenty of Wetherspoon pubs and pound shops close by if you really want them.

Carter - you are missing the point. The increased demand may be due to dietary habits, but they can't buy it from overseas for political reasons. But I actually think that the Guardian article is quite balanced - Norway is a prosperous country, economically it looks like staying out of the EU was the right thing for them to do (although I guess it depends on how much you like butter).

Can we please have no more talk of "bastards" or illegitimacy - it is offensive, outdated, and incredibly insensitive. As Otta says, marriage is no guarantee of stability, happiness, or feeling "nice". You can't force good parenting with bribes. There are other things the government can do to help... but this isn't one of them.

I think the proposal is totally nuts. You can't force a relationship to work by encouraging marriage. And you can't assume that unmarried parents are somehow not as well equipped to raise children. The only thing that matters is whether it is a loving, caring family. There is no point trying to apply a statistical argument - this is confusing correlation with causation. The government have no place trying to influence our private lives. I simply don't understand the analogy with laws concerning road safety and violent crime - things which can have a severe impact on other peoples lives. What would come next... bribes for going to church? But much as I disagree with Marmora Man, I also take issue with Huguenot's claim that "marriage gave us subordination and exploitation of women". Violent, nasty, misogynist men would exist regardless of marital status.

Sue, they are talking about the hygiene scores.

The tournament as a whole, I would count only as a partial success - Dirrel and Kessler dropped out through injury. Taylor pulled out because he was fed up of getting beaten up. We didn't get to see some of the fights we should have seen. It was a great idea, but I'm not sure if we'll ever see anything similar again.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy - that appetito menu must be for frozen > meals for clients to heat up themseves . > It's a great deal more varied than that delivered > ready to eat . Ah OK, it all makes sense now. So presumably the usual meals-on-wheels selection is a choice of chicken vindaloo, tom yum goong, or sichuan hot-pot. Once a month they do casserole (delivered by a daytime TV celeb) and the pensioners cry with joy.

I think Kessler just has a grudge against Ward - he feels Ward beat him through dirty tactics.

Good to see Huguenot getting into the Christmas spirit!

What is Jamie Oliver's sinister motive for promoting chillies? I had a look at the recipes on his website, there is plenty of traditional stuff without chilli. Southwark use Apetito for their home delivery service. A sample menu is here : menu. As you can see, there are only a handful of spiced meals available. Although admittedly, I did not witness the distressing sight of the old dear crying on Phillip Schofield's shoulder this morning. As for you personally, Tarot... there is plenty of choice out there, just eat whatever you like - nobody is forcing you to eat anything!!

Boxers do have a habit of moaning after a loss. Hopkins is terrible when he loses. Margarito was demolished by Cotto in their second fight, but moaned afterwards saying that Cotto "hits like a girl"! Froch was ungracious after he was well beaten by Kessler, claiming a home-town decision. You'd have to put Ward as a favourite over Froch given their respective performances against Kessler, but as they say... styles make fights. Hopefully Froch will put in a decent performance.

Maybe it will become a tourist attraction in the vein of Piccadilly Circus.

Chisora vs Vitali does sound like another mismatch, but in all honesty, a Klitschko vs anyone would seem to be a mismatch these days. There are just no credible challengers out there at the moment. Khan... sounds like it was a very close fight, so his claims of a robbery seem unfounded and a bit childish. Sounds like a rematch is a possibility, but I'm sure Peterson will want to maximise his earnings while he's a champ. And an immediate rematch with Khan would be high-risk.

What exactly would "accountability" entail in this situation?

We all know that in pop music, an image which can be manipulated and marketed is a higher priority than singing ability. Yes it is sad, and the X Factor is a part of that.

Maybe the Chancellor gets a cheap ?300 deal to Bulgaria when he goes skiing?

camberwell70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Don't vote. Don't buy the single. Don't watch. > Why? :( Because there are better things to do with your life than to watch/listen teenagers of dubious talent singing karaoke. The only excuse for watching this drivel is if you have no interest in music, and an obsession with the cult of celebrity.

I don't think the indigenous argument is constructive, if an MP is a British citizen, we should assume that they would act in the interests of the country. Let's not forget that many of us are not religious, and don't feel as though Christian politicians represent us either. Personally my stomach turned when I heard Tony Blair talk about "God" telling him to lead us into war.