Jeremy

To be fair, he did say "or wherever the financial centre of that respective country is". There are plenty of countries where the administrative capital is not the financial/commercial hub.

Apparently taking the first train can get you to Gatwick at 7:11... so maybe it will work out OK. However, I'd have a minicab number handy just in case!

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never understood why people feel the need to > say they are proud to be English, I'm not, but I'm > not ashamed to be English either...I'm just > English! I'm with you on this one. I don't really feel that England is any better than a whole bunch of other places. I guess there are positive elements of our culture and history, but there are quite a few negatives too. I feel a strong association with England, but pride has never come into it.

Waldo, ImpetuousVrouw... affordable housing is important, of course. BUT... while student accomodation in London isn't cheap, it is affordable with student loans and part-time work. As for the Poles sharing the squat... surely the costs of living and their likely wages would be something they investigated before coming over here? If the numbers didn't add up, I don't know why they'd bother. I don't really have a lot of sympathy if they've voluntarily put themselves in a position where they need to squat.

If Iaineasy can't help out, I might be able to do it... depends on the exact date.

What a sore loser!

Bob - are you a Logic user? I was thinking of getting a macbook, but noticed they'd dropped firewire from the cheaper models... so not sure now...

Boxing has lost a great talent, but he was a very sick and dangerous man. The world is surely a safer, better place without him. In light of his recent history, he really should have already been locked up before this happened. The BBC article speculates that the authorities let him go unpunished because of his sporting success.

I think they should have made them look a bit more grimy.

You have said many times that your actions are legal. That doesn't make it right.

I was going to say the same thing about HK - surely the lack of democracy or opposition parties means that the government can be smaller. Not exactly a price worth paying, is it?! Although interestingly, I believe their civil service is proportionately larger than ours. I definitely think there is something to be said for reducing complexity in our government, local councils, civil service, etc. But I don't think there are any valid examples of a radically lighter, yet fully functional democratic government.

Elliekp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway I am please to see more 'normal' looking girls hitting the headlines these days!! In all honesty - I don't think she looks particularly normal or healthy.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A good argument could be made that those with the > resources should "go private" to reduce their load > on the NHS. I don't really think so. As more patients turn to the private sector, more doctors and other staff move over into private work. NHS wards are even sometimes converted into private wards if the numbers add up. I'm not anti-private healthcare at all, but it's not necessarily true that going private reduces pressure on NHS services.

Huguenot, you know as well as I do that you would never be seen driving a car! Motoring is murder!

Next time I can't find a parking space, I'll give it a go and report back.

Hugo... I don't think it's a good idea to use the word "law" to describe both socially accepted norms, and written law of the land. It doesn't help your case. Although I do agree with your last point - there is an implication that they are quite ready for things to turn nasty.

Hmmm... it's not quite the same thing. I don't for a second advocate a laissez-faire economy, we obviously need sensible regulation and intervention. But it needs to be appropriate, and in this case it really needs to be coordinated with other major financial centres. Legislation also needs to come from a body which understands the industry, not from an election campaign "brainstorming" session. To take the car analogy further... wouldn't a better solution be to put a speed limiter on all cars sold in this country, rather than to fine offenders? Similarly, there are measures which could be put in at a lower level in the financial industry, but instead we focus on cruder, simpler measures which the public will understand. Anyway, I will step aside as we have gone off topic...

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy- there are many reasons to balance and > weigh up who to vote for - that bonus cap is > hardly the most pressing issue of the day Of course there are lots of issues to weigh up... but for me, that one is a deal breaker. Not just on a personal level, but on a fundamental level - I don't agree with that level of govt interference in industry. It is also a dangerous game to play with a large wedge of the country's income. There are more effective ways for reducing risk and safeguarding the industry than a crude cap on bonuses, but I guess they think it taps into public sentiment.

I have always been a Lib Dem supporter (at least, I thought they were the lesser of 3 evils), but unfortunately there's no way I can vote for a party who are proposing a 2.5k cap on city bonuses. So... Labour I guess...

The "area" is pretty much redundant for London address, all you should need is the number, road and postcode. However - Soames Street is in Peckham, so that's probably what you should put.

But there is a fundamental difference, in that the renter is there by the consent of the property owner. I am not so concerned by the legality of it, more the moral aspect. I am quite prepared to believe that squatting is morally defensible, as long as nobody is screwed over.

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the squatters have a point here, how would > you feel if you were renting and the landlord came > along and demanded agressively that you get out? I wouldn't be very happy. But squatting is not the same as (or even analogous to) renting.

goosegreenteam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We will have to see how we are approached by the > owners, if they are forcefull and agressive then > we will be less reluctant to cooperate. And that's where you lose my sympathy! But hopefully it won't come to that.

If what you say is true, then it would seem unreasonable to object to you squatting there. How does it work if/when the owner asks you to leave? Will you pack up more or less straight away? Or will you force them to go through the legal channels and wait until you are legally evicted?

Sometimes cars are taxed, but the owner has forgot to put the new disc in the window. I've done it several times...