robbin

I mark in halves and I quite like the word 'feckless'. But yes, I was also feeling generous.

Tops. Move on please...

0.5/10

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FFS. Mind your own business. Oooooooo!

Probably not worth shelling out for helmets for the kids then.

It's a shame he doesn't have an advert on his van - then GreenGoose might slash his tyres and set fire to it for us!

I think it was more about his references to people as "trash" (I guess that's his version of "pleb") that was seen as the problem!

Sounds like a charmer.

Posted by James Barber Today, 10:50AM Not much comfort but Ihave asked if this power company can attend the next Dulwich Community council to explain what the - is gonig on. James, I'm not knocking you paying an interest, but asking them to attend a meeting to explain seems a bit ott? It was only off for 5 minutes and it's been years since that happened. According to the power co. tweets it was the national grid that failed.

It's the helmet thing that gets me. A dog lead you could just let go of if necessary. From personal experience I know a helmet can save you. I cycle a lot (daily). A few months ago some idiot came out of a junction without looking and knocked me off (at speed). I consider myself reasonably skilful on a bike but there was no way of avoiding this. I landed on my head (primarily) and it messed up various parts of my body. The impact put a large crack and indentation in my helmet, which surely would have been a large crack or indentation in my skull had I not been wearing it. Yes, if I had then been run over by an HGV it would not have helped. Yes, if it was a minor bump I wouldn't have needed it. But that wasn't the case - it was a very heavy knock on my helmet which would have seriously injured me or worse. In my view, nobody - no matter how arrogant or stubborn - can ever sensibly argue a helmet might not save your kid's life. Of course he or she may never need it and truly hope that's the case, but it's a gamble with odds - pure and simple. Personally I feel I'm entitled to take a gamble with my own safety, but not so much with that of my children. But then each to their own, I suppose. Surely its just a matter of weighing up the pros and cons. The pros are it could save life or serious injury. The cons? It costs a few quid. Apart from that, is there another downside I am missing? Is that really the objection - a few quid?

Coincidence this happened on a Friday?

No, I agree. It's just that if someone is capable of such gaffs/conduct, who knows what else is out there? There are other issues too. Maybe there is nothing, I suppose we may see on Sunday if there was anything imminent such as is being suggested by one reporter from the Times.

Sorry David - just saw your post. My point was that it's not bizarre that he should feel the pressure and stand down because of the new level of scrutiny. Given the aggro you get for allegedly calling someone a pleb, he was always going to come under some renewed level of fire for his alleged remarks made as "Harrison". Then there's the Jersey family trust etc. Arguably it might seem a bit difficult to lay into non-doms when there's a Jersey trust hanging about in the background. Unless, you were referring to him standing in the first place knowing there would be such scrutiny, in which case I see your point completely and I agree.

"He was forced to apologise two years ago after it was revealed that he had once commented on a website that London?s nightclubs were ?full of trash and C-list wannabes?. And he lives in a ?1million home reportedly funded from a family trust located in the tax haven of Jersey ? despite his party?s stance against tax avoidance. Simon Danczuk, the outspoken Labour MP for Rochdale, had questioned Mr Umunna?s suitability for the role. ?Is he the sort of person who could win seats in Bolton West, in Bury North, in Glasgow?? he said on LBC Radio. ?Labour does need to move away from this metropolitan comfort zone. The party has been too London-centric.? Two years ago Mr Umunna attracted ridicule when it emerged his Wikipedia entry had been altered to refer to him as ?the UK?s Barack Obama?. The change had come from a computer registered at his old law firm." Personally, I would have thought that's enough embarrassing strikes against him before he even threw his hat into the ring. I reckon Ed Ball's missus is the most likely winner - but there's so long to go to September, anything could happen.

For ease of reference here it is... Posted by robbin May 13, 10:51AM Come back 'Ed, all is forgiven! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308381/Voters-dismissed-trash-1m-Ibiza-villa-called-White-House-credibility-crisis-threatening-Labours-Obama-Chuka-Umunna.html

David, there's NOTHING bizarre about it! See my earlier link posted about Chukka's problems... From SKY News just now - "A source close to Mr Umunna told Sky News the suggestion that his decision to withdraw was due to forthcoming negative stories in the press was "utter nonsense"." Oh yeah, we'll see...

Cyclist, so as I understand the gist of your viewpoint/arguments, they are along these lines... You might have an accident that's not your fault, no matter how expert a cyclist you are - 'whatever!' A crack on the head can cause life changing injuries or death, if not wearing a helmet - 'yes, but a helmet wouldn't be any help at all if a lorry ran over your head, so its not worth wearing one - anyway I once read that someone says they don't make you safer' Better be safe than sorry and have the child's head protected in case of accident - 'no, my child doesn't need protection because there's probably not going to be an accident because I'm so good at cycling' A dog being towed along next to you might not be quite as safe as not taking the dog - 'cyclists have accidents without dogs, so that's PROOF it makes no difference!' 'Don't tell me what to do - go and campaign for a cycle lane which would lessen my risk of an accident ('oh, there is a risk! - never mind - don't tell me what to do anyway...)'

???? - that sums it up nicely. Milliband and his cronies are deluded (or even if the penny has now dropped have backed themselves into a position they cannot easily get out of) but I think others in the party can see the reality of the situation. It is too early to say whether they will really have a proper review and change course, but it will be interesting to see what happens. What is clear is that Ed and his supporters squandered a golden opportunity to get into power with an epic miscalculation (dating back to when the union block vote put him in place despite party members votes and the votes of MPs against him). Now was their best time to win - the Lib Dems blocked the long overdue boundary changes and those will now happen and will alone make it harder for Ed's successor to win next time.

(with apologies for the source!)

Come back 'Ed, all is forgiven! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308381/Voters-dismissed-trash-1m-Ibiza-villa-called-White-House-credibility-crisis-threatening-Labours-Obama-Chuka-Umunna.html

Depressing but substantially correct, I think. With some exceptions a career in politics tends to attract wrong'uns or at least even if they are not when they started, many (because of the system) feel they have to compromise on principles to get ahead. Then there's the temptations of lobbyists, free lunches and living expenses... Anyway, interesting post from Bodsier some of which I agree with - particularly the fact that many voters do not understand the finer points of macro economics. Abvove all, I'm glad you are off your fabric analysis jag from yesterday! ; )

Sorry, that's making my head hurt. Out of all the areas of forensics that are routinely used in criminal cases - DNA coding, toxicology, serology (body fluids), ballistics, soil analysis, pollen analysis, entomology (the last three often relating to location analysis) graphology, finger-printing, blood distribution etc. etc. and you obsess about fabric analysis being reduced? I don't think there has been any decision to reduce forensic analysis of fabric evidence in favour of looking at mobile phones and computers. It obviously depends on each case and what evidence there is. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I just can't see it. I also still can't see the link between fabric analysis and the Human Rights Act. Sorry.

Eh? If you think the prosecuting authorities and police no longer concentrate on finding and analysing fabric samples at the scene of a crime (whether or not in favour of checking someone's internet usage) you are seriously mistaken! Far from being a dying skill, forensic analysis of physical evidence (whether it be fabric or low copy DNA sample analysis) is getting ever more skilful and effective. It is routinely used in courts across the UK. Daily. I have no idea how any of this relates to the Human Rights Act.

I agree, the final draft Bill of Rights should be in place and considered as part and parcel of any repeal of the Human Rights Act (which incorporates the Convention). I suspect that is what is intended. It would be very odd if one was repealed by Parliament before the other was ready (and I very much doubt that would ever pass - majority or no majority). Like you Otta, I was a bit surprised by the death penalty figures. It's been so out of the news for the last decade that I think most people don't give the death penalty much thought. I think as the US continues to take 45 minutes to slowly kill people in grisly ways, the public appetite for it here will wane further.

You appear not to have mentioned the Bill of Rights. Why would a properly drafted Bill of Rights not provide proper protection? I simply don't follow your third sentence about fabric analysis being reduced in favour of analysis of social networking. How are those two matters related?